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. Muthukumar and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Office of t ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and pass such further or other orders.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. 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 neither a case nor a petition enquiry is pending against this petitioner on the file of the respondent police. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Ravi @ Onankuttai Ravi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and conviction passed in S.C.No.229 of 2010 to order dated 30.05.2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.) 1. The sole accused in the Session Case in S.C.No.229 of 2010 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore is the appellant.2. After trail, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced him as under: ad>ConvictionSentence394 IPC8 years RI and fine Rs.50,000/- i/d one year RI 3. The case of the prosecution in brief runs as under: (i) On 06.11.2008 at about 11.30a.m., P.W.1 was grazing her cattle, near the burial ground in Eriputhur colony, in Narayanapuram Village in Vellore District. At that time the accused robbed her jewels (M.Os.1 to 7) at knife point. He had also injured her. It was witnessed to by P.W.2. P.W.1 cried. P.Ws.6 and 7 her husband and son came. (ii) On the same day, at the Anaicut police station, P.W.1, gave Ex.P1,...
Murugesan and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent herein to register the complaint given by the petitioner dated 12.3.2016 and take necessary action within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent herein to register the complaint given by the petitioner dated 12.3.2016 and take necessary action within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 12.03.2016 has been sent by post to the respondents. 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 12.03.2016. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken ther...
Prathap and Others Vs. State rep. By The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Order IV, Rule 9(4) of AS Rules, to condone the delay of 456 days in representing the Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment in C.A.No.7 of 2013 dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur, confirming the judgment and sentence in C.C.No.152 of 2012 dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, Tiruvarur District.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the Respondent. 2. It comes to be known that the Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Revision Petitioners had filed an affidavit in Crl.M.P.No.4635 of 2016 in Crl.RC.No.SR.59697 of 2014 to the effect that his clerk had quit the job and the post was vacant for months together and the files dealt with by him could not be easily found out. That apart, the relevant papers of the Revision Petition were misplaced somewhere in the counsel's office and could not be easily traced. 3. It is to be...
A. Muthusamy Vs. State represented by The Commissioner of Police, Tric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent police to register the complaint given by the petitioner dated 18.3.2016 and take necessary action against the proposed accused persons.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent police to register the complaint given by the petitioner dated 18.3.2016 and take necessary action against the proposed accused persons. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the complaint dated 18.03.2016 has been sent by post to the respondents. 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 18.03.2016. On receipt of such complaint, the same shall be enquired into and action be taken thereon in accordance with law, if...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
1. This matter has been listed today under the caption For Being Mentioned at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that after the death of the petitioner V.G.Naidu @ Govindasamy Naidu, the legal representatives of the petitioner were brought on record and mistakenly, the name of the legal representatives were omitted to be mentioned in the reconstituted grounds of revision, but, by mistake, the name of the deceased alone was printed and therefore, this mistake has to be rectified. The learned counsel has also filed a memo to that effect. 3. This memo ought to have been filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. However, on notice, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has made an endorsement of 'no objection' for recording the names of the legal representatives in the Judgment. 4. Accordingly, this memo is recorded and the Registry is directed to carry out necessary amend...
Ramkumar Raja and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathap ...
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 in the guise of enquiry.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioners in the guise of enquiry. 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 seen that based on the complaint a case in Crime No.180 of 2016 for Women Missing has been registered. 4. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, they 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 petitioners against arrest. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of....
V. Kalyani Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Madurai
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 respondent to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner herein dated 19.2.2016 and investigate the case in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner herein dated 19.2.2016 and investigate the case in accordance with 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. On reading of the complaint dated 19.02.2016, it is seen that the petitioner has entered into a sale agreement dated 14.09.2007 with the opposite parties under which the petitioner had given Rs.30,000/- to the opposite parties and had also permitted them to stay in the house and pay him rent. Now, it is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite parties are neither vacating the...
P. Rathinakumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st Respondent to instruct the 2nd Respondent not to harass the Petitioner and to pass other or further 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 1st Respondent to instruct the 2nd Respondent not to harass the Petitioner. 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 neither a case nor a petition enquiry is pending against this petitioner on the file of the respondent police. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Salai Chennai, represented by its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 30.10.2015 passed in M.P. No.1 of 2011 in W.P. No.23857 of 2010.) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. With the consent of learned counsels for parties, the writ appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status in the writ appeal. 3. Questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 30th October, 2015 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.23857 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge, the instant intra-court appeal is filed by the appellants / management. 4. The indisputable facts in brief are that a dispute arose in respect of disengagement of the first respondent and second respondent from service from 1st October 1998 and 2nd October, 1998 respectively. The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.(D)No.815, Labour and Employment (A2) Department, dated 24th November, 2006, referred the dispute to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »