Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vijaya Ragavan Vs. The Divisional Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2015 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he made a representation before the respondents on 26.11.2015 to disconnect the service connection, where the tenant is residing. 2. Without the tenant asking for disconnection, this Court cannot give such a direction. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs....
Bakeer Maideen and Another Vs. State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to expedite the investigation in connection with Crime No. 175 of 2015 on the file of the respondent and conclude the same within a time frame as specified by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the respondent police to expedite the investigation in connection with Crime No. 175 of 2015 on the file of the respondent and conclude the same. 2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that if some more time is granted by this Court, the investigation would be completed and final report would be filed by the respondent before the concerned Court. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent police to complete the investigation in Crime No.175 of 2015 and to file a final report before the concerned jurisdictional Co...
M. Subramanian @ Suresh Vs. The Secretary (Health and FW), Department ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2016 and to order the concerned Medical Officer to put the petitioner deafness for fair medical examination and to order to give the appropriate physically-challenged certificate based on the petition dated 22.02.2016 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petitionfor a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2016 and to order the concerned Medical Officer to put the petitioner deafness for fair medical examination and to order to give the appropriate physically-challenged certificate based on the petition dated 22.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Today, when the matte...
Angamuthu Vs. The Inspector of Police, Salem and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision against the order dated 09.12.2013 made in Crl.M.P.No.33467 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Athur, Salem District.) 1. The defacto complainant upset by the exclusion of certain accused in taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Athur, Salem District, has directed this revision. 2. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, viz., Angamuthu, the first respondent, viz., Thammampatti police, Salem District registered a case in Crime No.632 of 2008 as against A1 to A5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed final report as against A1 to A3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance as against them only and proceeded further. Admittedly, as on today, the trial has not started. 3. The defacto complainant filed this revision for having aggrieved by the order passed in the petition under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.33467 of 2011 before the said Magistrate against the left out accused, who wer...
Elayaraja Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Kairlabad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur in S.C.No.68 of 2012 dated 14.09.2012.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 404 I.P.C. By judgment dated 14.09.2012, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 404 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of t...
Subramanian Vs. The Regional Passport Officer
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to rectify the petitioner's Date of Birth as 18.05.1976 instead of 13.04.1971 in Passport No. F3318607 as per the petitioner's School Records and Birth Certificate and on the basis of the representation dated 15.10.2014 or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Writ Petition and to that effect he has also sent a letter dated 17.03.2016 to the Registry to post this writ petition for withdrawal. 2. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Rama Devi Vs. The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to complete the investigation in Crime No.653 of 2013 and file a final report.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the respondent police to complete the investigation in Crime No.653 of 2013 and file a final report. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the petitioner / defacto complainant is not co-operating with the enquiry. 3. The petitioner / defacto complainant is directed to co-operate with the enquiry and the respondent police shall expeditiously complete the investigation and file either a closure report or a final report, as the case may be, in accordance with law. With the above direction, this petition is closed....
Suganya Vs. State rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibiti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records relating to the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.946/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 17.09.2015, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to produce the detenu viz., Ashok, S/o.Raja, aged about 26 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and to set him at liberty.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Ashok,and challenge is made to the order of detention, dated 17.09.2015, passed by the second respondent, under which the detenu has been branded as a Goonda and detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 17.09.2015, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following four cases:- 1. K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1595 of 2014 for the alleged commission of the offence...
Narkees Banu Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct to withdraw the case in Crime No.739 of 2015 dated 18.12.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and entrust the same to some other investigation agency by the competent officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct to withdraw the case in Crime No.739 of 2015 dated 18.12.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and entrust the same to some other investigation agency by the competent officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that this petitioner's daughter Riswana had eloped with one Pandeeswaran, in connection with which, on the complaint given by the petitioner, the respon...
T. Subburaj Vs. The District Collector, Theni District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2016 and consequently to take legal action against the Respondents 8 and 9 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in this Writ Petitionis for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2016 and consequently, to take legal action against the Respondents 8 and 9. 2. Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition in respect of the sale agreement whichis purely a contractual matter and therefore, he cannot appear and make a representation to the Registrar to stop the same. Therefore, the petitioner's recourse is only to file a petition ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »