Chennai Court April 2016 Judgments
Ajmalkhan and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in connection with Crime No.420 of 2015 on the file of the Cumbum North Police Station, Theni District and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in connection with Crime No.420 of 2015 on the file of the Cumbum North Police Station, Theni District and quash the same. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.420 of 2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 355 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, has been registered against the petitioners / Accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the respondent Police, namely, Mr.V.Ravichandran, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Cumbum North...
Tag this Judgment!Jeyachandra Devar Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to use the vacant place situated in front of the Thirumangalam Bus-Stand for bus passengers, general public and free flow of traffic instead of constructing shopping complex at there.) S.S. Sundar, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2, to use the vacant place situated in front of the Thirumangalam Bus-stand for bus passengers, general public and free flow of traffic, instead of constructing shopping complex at there. 2. We have already disposed of another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.9096 of 2015 with directions. The admitted fact is that new shops 18 in numbers are proposed to be constructed in the same place wherein 10 shops were in existence. Since the building was in a dilapidated condition, Thirumangalam Municipality has passed a Resolution, to demolish the e...
Tag this Judgment!S. Stalin Babu Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Thanj ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6640 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in Cr.R.P.No. 25 of 2015 dated 14.03.2016 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court) Thanjavur confirming the order passed by the court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Papanasam in C.M.P.No. 1797 of 2015 dated 09.07.2015 and to set aside the same and consequently to discharge the petitioner from the charges in C.C.No.96 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam. Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6641 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in in Cr.R.P.No.26 of 2015 dated 14.03.2016 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court) Thanjavur confirming the order passed by the court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Papanasam in C.M.P.No. 1798 of 2015 dated 09.07.2015 and to set aside the same and consequently to dischar...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Khanna Vs. Prabu Polycolor Limited rep. By its Chairman and Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
Common Order: 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee is the petitioner in the present revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said suit, the revision/plaintiff filed two applications I.A.No.43 of 2016 and I.A.No.44 of 2016 for two types of injunctions. After the court was satisfied with the service of notice privately with the permission of the Court, the learned trial Judge accepted the undertaking given by two advocates to file vakalat for R1 to R5. But the said advocates went on getting adjournment after adjournment without filing vakalat and counter and the Court below also chose to grant time for filing vakalat and counter on all occasions wherein such time was prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 2. As the revision pertains to inaction and omission on the part of ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jeyapaul Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tuticori ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to complete the investigation in respect of Crime No.219 of 2015 dated 29.09.2015 and file a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the respondent police to complete the investigation in respect of Crime No.219 of 2015 dated 29.09.2015 and file a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the investigation in Crime No.219 of 2015 has been completed and the same has been closed as mistake of fact. A copy of the closure report is furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to wo...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ariramachandran Vs. R. Thirumugam
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the District Munsif, Tiruchendur to take on file the unnumbered E.A.NO.......of 2016 in E.P.No.38 of 2014 in O.S.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court,Tiruchendur and to decide the same on merits, in accordance with law, within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision seeks direction for early dispsoal of E.A......of 2016 in E.P.No.38 of 2014 in O.S.No.7 of 2014, which seeks reconstruction of Petition mentioned documents. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the records relating to the case were lost in Court. If so, the Court below would be totally in error, in raising questions on the maintainability of application seeking reconstruction of records. 4. In view of the above, the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur is directed to dispose of E.A......o...
Tag this Judgment!C. Sevyuga Pandian Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(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 fourth respondent in No. Nil Acknowledgment dated 22.01.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to confirm the auction in favour of the petitioner having bid the highest bid amount of Rs.1,05,000.00 held on 18.01.2016 for capturing fish in Kaniraithan Kanmai at Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District and pass further order as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent in No.Nil Acknowledgment dated 22.01.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to confirm the auction in favour of the petitioner for having quoted the highest bid amount of Rs.1,05,000.00...
Tag this Judgment!R. Anbazhagan Vs. The Central Bank of India, Through its Regional Mana ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order, made in W.P.(MD) No. 125 of 2015, dated 09.03.2015, by which, the Writ Court, while setting aside the order, dated 04.09.2014, of the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Madurai, 1st respondent herein, has declined to interfere with the order, dated 16.03.2012 of the Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India, Madurai, 2nd respondent herein. Consequently, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to include his name in the panel of valuers. 2. Vide order, dated 16.03.2012, name of the appellant has been deleted from Bank's existing panel of valuers. Central Bank of India, Madurai, desired not to provide any valuation reports of its customers, to the appellant. Vide proceedings, dated 04.09.2014, for lack of professionalism, the appellant has been blacklisted from Bank's panel of valuers. 3. Before the Writ Court, contentions have been raised by the appellant that he was only a valuer and he is no...
Tag this Judgment!P. Parvadham Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 3rd respondent to file a final report on the FIR dated 30.01.2016 in Crime No.52 of 2016, pending on the file of the 3rd respondent within a stipulated time as fixed by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 3rd respondent to file a final report on the FIR dated 30.01.2016 in Crime No.52 of 2016, pending on the file of the 3rd respondent. 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 and to file a final report before the concerned jurisdictional Court as expeditiously as possible....
Tag this Judgment!A. Thameem Ansari Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Ma ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to file the final report in Crime No.252 of 2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai within the time stipulated by this Honble Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the respondent to file the final report in Crime No.252 of 2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the investigation in Crime No.252 of 2014 has been completed and a final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, which is yet to be taken on file. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »