Chennai Court February 2016 Judgments
B. Balaji Venkatesh Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st Respondent to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere in civil dispute based upon the complaint dated 15.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st Respondent to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere in civil dispute based upon the complaint dated 15.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, this petitioner has given a complaint against Andavar / 5th respondent herein and similarly, on a complaint given by the said Andavar against this petitioner, petition enquiry is pending before the 2nd respondent. 4. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, he shall not be harassed. During the course of...
Tag this Judgment!Patturaj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent Police not to harass the petitioner pending insolvency petition in I.P.No. 13 of 2015 on the file of the District Court Tirunelveli.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent Police not to harass the petitioner pending insolvency petition in I.P.No. 13 of 2015 on the file of the District Court Tirunelveli. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on a complaint given by one Seenivasan against this petitioner, petition enquiry is pending before the 3rd respondent. 4. The petitioner is directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, he shall not be harassed. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police is free to register ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subbulakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep, by the Secretary to Govt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: in W.P.No.24943 of 2015 :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in C.P.No.380 of 2013 and the order dated 13.01.2015, passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai and quash the order dated 13.01.2015, in C.P.No.380 of 2013, so far as it relates to awarding interest at 12% p.a., on the sum of Rs.2,56,242/- only from the date of C.P.No.380 of 2013, instead of from 20.01.1995 (the date of death of petitioner's husband) and consequently direct the respondents to pay the said sum of Rs.2,56,242/- as awarded by the Labour Court, with interest at 12% p.a., from 20.01.1995, on the said sum of Rs.2,56,242/- with other 'service' benefits, including employment to the deceased family member, according to his/her qualification, forthwith. W.P.No.37616 of 2015 :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 29.10.2015 made in W.A(MD)No.875 of 2015.) C.T. Selvam, J. 1. The petitioners seek review of the order passed by this Court in W.A(MD)No.875 of 2015 dated 29.10.2015. 2. Though the case of the 1st respondent has come to the attention of this Court time and again by way of writ proceedings, appeals against orders therein, we would restrict ourselves to the proceedings emanating from W.P(MD)No.17034 of 2014. 3. The 1st respondent moved such writ petition seeking the following relief:- ''To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders in R.C.No.222253/Rect.I(2)/2013, dated 23.8.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent and in Na.Ka.No.B1/3964/2014 dated 7.3.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent along with the relevant portions in annexure II referred to in Rule 14 of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Marimuthu and Others Vs. The Director General of Police, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Respondent No. 3 to 6 not to harass the petitioner and his family members without any legally sustainable complaint and to direct the Respondent No. 2 to follow the guideline issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in D.K.Basu (1997 1 SCC 416) case in matters pertaining to arrest or interrogation and consequently to direct the Respondent No. 2 to take action against the Respondent Nos.3,5 and 6.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 not to harass the petitioner and his family members without any legally sustainable complaint and to direct the 2nd respondent to follow the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in D.K.Basu (1997 1 SCC 416) case in matters pertaining to arrest or interrogation and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to take action against the respondent Nos.3,5 and 6. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ayyavu and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Inspector of Police Y.Othakadai Madurai not to interfere into a civil subject matter in respect of the survey no. 42/1 B-3 Rajakambiram Pillai Madurai under the grave of conduction enquiry.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai, Madurai not to interfere into a civil subject matter in respect of the S.No.42/1B-3, Rajakambiram Pillai, Madurai under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is seen that on a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, a regular case in Crime No.641 of 2015 has been registered against Ayyavu / 1st petitioner herein. 4. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the usual order of Not to Harass cannot be passed in this case and therefore, this Criminal Original...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kalpana Vs. R. Saravanan @ Arumugam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.2 of 2015 dated 02.02.2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.) 1. This revision has been preferred under section 397 Cr.P.C. by the wife of Saravanan/ first respondent and also against certain others who are related to the petitioner by her marriage to the first respondent. 2. Petitioner/wife instituted M.C.No.2 of 2015 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode seeking several reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called 'D.V.Act'). It was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode on 02.02.2016. 3. Aggrieved, instead of filing an appeal to the next appellate Court, she preferred this revision. 4. The question is whether this revision can be entertained when the appeal remedy is provided under Section 29 of the D.V. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that ...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Deepak Cables India Ltd., Vs. The Labour Officer (Conciliat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to commence the conciliation proceedings forthwith with regard to the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner Union on 01.02.2016, relating to the legality of the retrenchment notice of 12.01.2016, issued by the second respondent-Management and issue such further or other directions. 1. The petitioner is a Trade Union consisting of employees of the second respondent Management, and they have filed this Writ Petition praying for a direction to the first respondent, the Conciliation Officer to commence the conciliation proceedings forthwith, with regard to the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner Union on 01.02.2016 relating to the legality of the retrenchment notice, dated 12.01.2016, issued by the second respondent Management. 2. Mr.V.Prakash learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Union submitted that there is a wage dispute relating to...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony Jerald Vs. The Inspector of Police P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: H.C.P. has been filed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent to forthwith produce the body and person of the petitioner's wife Jecintha aged about 45 years before this Court and to set her at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to produce the body of the detenu, namely, Jecintha, who is the wife of the petitioner, aged about 45 years, before this Court and set her at liberty. 2. It has been stated that the detenu had left to her sister's house, at Saidapet, on 20.2.2016. Since she did not return, the son of the petitioner, namely, Jaffery Joshua, had given a complaint to the respondent, on 21.2.2016, which had been registered, as crime No.249/2016. Since no effective steps had been taken, by the respondent, the petitioner has preferred the present Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court. 3. Today, when the matter had been listed for hearing, the detenu was...
Tag this Judgment!Adaikkan Servai Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant appropriate permission and adequate police protection to celebrate the "Mattu Pongal Vizha Maavu Padayal Vizha and Annadanam Festival" on 22.02.2016 in Sri Periyanatchi Amman Temple situates in Valayappatti Ponnamaravahi Taluk Pudukkottai District on the eve of Masi Festival based on the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2016 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant appropriate permission and adequate police protection to celebrate the "Mattu Pongal Vizha Maavu Padayal Vizha and Annadanam Festival" on 22.02.2016 in Sri Periyanatchi Amman Temple situates in Valayappatti Ponnamaravahi Taluk Pudukkottai District on the eve of Masi Festival based on the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2016 within the time limit that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »