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.
Venkatesan Vs. Mohammed Nazeer, The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for the wilful disobedience of the order dated 26.03.2015 by this Court passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.4347 of 2015.) 1. It is represented by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent that the order passed by this Court has been complied with by registering F.I.R for the offence under Section 379 IPC (NH) in Crime No.225 of 2015 dated 06.06.2014 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Recording the submissions made by both sides, the contempt petition is closed....
P. Siva Chidambaram Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry based on the complaint given by the 4th respondent.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry based on the complaint given by the 4th respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on the basis of the complaint given against this petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 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 an FIR and this ...
C. Bala Murugan Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents herein to register an FIR under the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents herein to register an FIR under the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 23.03.2016 has been sent by post to the 1st respondent. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the 2nd respondent along with this order and lodge a fresh complaint, containing the very same contents as stated in the previous complaint dated 23.03.2016. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in accordance with law, if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or drop action otherwise. With the above direction, this Cri...
Amsavalli @Amuthayammal Vs. M/s. Anakainu Manufacturing, rep. through ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.No. 867 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Addl. District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai dated 04.10.2011.) 1. The claimant is on appeal challenging the award dated 04.10.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No. 867 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident claims Tribunal/Addl. District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai. 2. The appellant is the claimant. The first respondent is owner of the vehicle which is involved in the accident and second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. 3. The facts of the case:- On 02.03.2008, when the appellant was waiting for the bus at Chinthamani bus stop, a goods vehicle belonging to the first respondent bearing registration No. TN 59 AH 2831 was driven in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed against the appellant and she suffered injuries. She was admitted on the sa...
Selvam and Others Vs. State rep. By The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 128 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition against the order in C.M.P.No.2657 of 2015 dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner at para 2 in Crl.M.P.No.4587 of 2016 had observed that the order was passed on 07.09.2015 (in Crl.M.P.No.2657 of 2015) and he could not approach the Hon'ble High Court in time because of his struggle for livelihood and further, he could not secure proper legal assistance. In this process, there has occasioned a delay of 128 days in preferring the Crl.R.C.No.SR.17021 of 2016 before this Court and the same is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reasons. 3. This Court, on being subjectively satisfied to the reasons ascribed by the Petitioner at para 2 of his affidavit filed in support of Crl.M.P.N...
Susila and Another Vs. State by, The Inspector of Police, Perambalur D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.91 of 2011, dated 01.10.2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.91 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur. They stood charged for offence under Section 120-B read with 302 of I.P.C. By judgment, dated 01.10.2013, the trial court convicted them under the said offence under Section 120-B read with 302 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants 1 and 2/Accused 1 and 2 are before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Subramanian. The first accused is his wife. They have three children. The marriage betwe...
Marimuthu Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of an enquiry without following due process of law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of an enquiry without following due process of law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on the basis of the complaint given against this petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 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 an FIR and this order shall not be a shield for the petitioner against arrest. With the above dire...
Ganesh Kumar Vs. State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Siv ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the complaint of one Karnan and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and thus render justice.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the complaint of one Karnan. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would, on instructions from the respondent police, submit that on the complaint given by one Karnan, a petition enquiry was conducted and the same was subsequently closed. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Nagu and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd Respondent not to harass the Petitioners except according to due process of law and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd Respondent not to harass the Petitioners except according to due process of law and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant against this petitioner, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2016 under Section 366(A) IPC against one Palanisamy, who is th...
E. Nagendran Vs. E. Kannammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for records in respect of order made in I.A.No.64/2013 in O.S.No.347/2007, dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and set aside the same and allow the present revision petition.) 1. The petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition against the order in I.A.No.64 of 2013 in O.S.No.347 of 2007, dated 26.03.2013, on the file of Additional District Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu. When the case was called on 18.04.2016 there was no representation for the petitioner. On the other hand the respondent has filed the memo stating that the suit in O.S.No.347 of 2007, pending on the file of Additional District Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu was dismissed on 06.02.2016 itself. He has also filed a Xerox copy of the decree to that effect. Even today there was no representation for the petitioner but the counsel for the responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »