Chennai Court April 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.
P.K. Muthukumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the proposed accused person on the complaint made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent dated 30.1.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the proposed accused person on the complaint made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent dated 30.1.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 30.01.2016, it is seen that the opposite party has borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- from the petitioner during April, 2015 and that the opposite party had also given a cheque, which, on presentation, got dishonored. The transaction essentially appears to be money dispute and hence, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR. 4. Accordingly, this petition is closed with liberty...
Sethammal Vs. The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Wing ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to register a case on the report given to petitioner dated 05.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case on the report given to petitioner dated 05.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 05.03.2016, the petitionerhas not even stated as to when the opposite party has fabricated false documents in respect of her property. Hence, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR and the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed....
Dhanalakshmi Vs. Nallammal Rangasam (died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and decretal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli dated 04.11.2015 made in I.A.No.1001 of 2014 in O.S.No.576 of 2008.) 1. Notice sent to the first respondent has returned with an endorsement "expired". Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a Memo today stating that the first respondent is very much alive. The Memo is recorded. 2. Service of notice on respondents 3 to 8 is yet to be completed. Await service of notice on respondents 3 to 8 till 13.06.2016. Fresh notice to the first respondent by then. Batta in two days. The matter shall be listed on 13.06.2016. 3. Before concluding this order, this court wants to issue certain directions to the Registry as well as the Bar/litigants. Many instances have come to the notice of this court, wherein notices were sent directly to the parties at the first instance, without making an attempt to serve notice on the c...
S. Mariappan Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: In W.P(MD)No.7631 of 2016:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner Rs.5,53,086/- towards Gratuity and Rs.2,38,488/- towards leave salary together with 18% interest per annum within a time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the judgment of the Honourable The First Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.383 to 457 of 2015 dated 12.06.2015, that the benefits of the petitioners therein would be settled through twelve equal monthly installments, carrying interest of 6% p.a. The order of The Honourable The First Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.383 to 457 of 2015 dated 12.06.2015, which reads as follows: "The learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has obtained written instructio...
Manikandan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Polur Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused, in Sessions Case.202 of 2007, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of his wife and his child. By judgement dated 10.4.2013, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302(two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, for each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) There are two deceased in this case, by name, Mrs.Mehala and a male child, Yuvaraj, aged three months (hereinafter referred to as D1 and D2 respectively). D1-Mrs.Mehala was already married to one Mr.Ravi. She lived with him for about six months and thereafter, she was deserted by her h...
The Inspector General of Prisions, Tiruchirapalli District and Another ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.04.2014 in W.P(MD)No.6538 of 2009.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Writ appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.(MD)No. 6538 of 2009, by which, the Writ Court has quashed the order, dated 01.12.2008, passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Tiruchirappalli, 1st appellant herein, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, on the grounds that the writ petitioner had not attained majority, within a period of three years, from the date of death of the deceased employee. 2. Facts deduced from the supporting affidavit filed to the writ petition and the materials on record are, that the mother of the petitioner was working as a sweeper in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. On 30.03.1998, she died in harness. At that time, the writ petitioner was a minor, aged about 16 years. Hence, his grandmother has made an application, dated 30.09.2000, to the 1st appellant herein, seeking for employment assistance o...
Nataraja Medical Agencies Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.3697 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in TIN:33735540330/2010-11 dated 21.09.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to redo the assessment after providing adequate opportunity to us and ass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.3733 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in TIN:33735540330/2011-12 dated 21.09.2015 and quash the same and onsequently direct the second respondent to redo the assessment after providing adequate opportunity to us and ass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. Prayer in W.P(MD)...
N.T. Manibaba Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirune ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to register a case based on the complaint dated 24.09.2015.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case based on the complaint dated 24.09.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending 3. In view of the above submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall appear before the 2nd respondent in person and co-operate in the enquiry. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police shall take action in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P and othe...
K.R. Ramesh Babu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the accused on the complaint dated 26.3.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the accused on the complaint dated 26.3.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 26.03.2016, it essentially appears to be a boundary dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party and in order to give criminal colour to it, the petitioner has alleged that the opposite party had used abusive language and threatened him. Under such circumstances, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR. 4. Hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law....
Karthikeyan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere the Civil Dispute in O.S.No.47 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District and direct the 1st respondent to take necessary action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere the Civil Dispute in O.S.No.47 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District and direct the 1st respondent to take necessary action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by the 3rd respondent, petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »