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.
Rajalakshmi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Karur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct 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....
R.K. Jeyachitra Vs. The University Grants Commission, Rep. by its Join ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents Nos.2 - 4 to constitute a committee to enquire about the sexual harassment by the respondents Nos.5 and 6 against the petitioner and take necessary criminal and departmental action against them as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Visaka and Others -Vs- Rajasthan reported in AIR 1997 SC 3011 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed....
Durai Arasan Vs. Jeyasingh
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 115 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.04.2015, made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi.) This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.04.2015, made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi. 2. The petitioner is the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2012, on the file of the Rent Control Tribunal/Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi, for eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default. After contesting, the said RCOP was allowed on 09.12.2013, granting two months time for the respondent to vacate the petition property. Against the said order of eviction, the respondent filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi. In R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2012, the respondent also filed I.A.No.8 of 2014 for injunction, r...
M. Ramamurthy Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Ti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under section 374 [2] Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tiruvarur in SC.No.61/2011 dated 08.03.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellantis the sole accused in SC.No.61/2011 on the file of the learned District Judge, Tiruvarur. By judgment dated 08.03.2013, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is 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 Miss.Yagapriya. P.W.1 is her mother. They were residing at Edamelaiyur village. The accused also belongs to the same village. It is alleged that the accused had fallen in love with the deceased. When this love affair came to light, the mother of the deceased, viz., P.W.1, ...
Ramadoss Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to give suitable police protection to survey the petitioner's land situated in S.Nos.50/3, 50/7, 50/8, 51/4, 51/8, 51/7, 58/1 and 59/2A in Manjapattinm Village, Paramakudi Taluk to the petitioner's life and limb by considering his representation dated 29.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to give suitable police protection to survey the petitioner's land situated in S.Nos.50/3, 50/7, 50/8, 51/4, 51/8, 51/7, 58/1 and 59/2A in Manjapattinm Village, Paramakudi Taluk to the petitioner's life and limb by considering his representation dated 29.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry in CSR No.37 of 2016 was conducted and the same was closed on 13.03.2016 with a direction to the par...
S. Rajesh @ Vijaya Rajesh Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to file a charge sheet in FIR in Crime No.60 of 2014 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent within the stipulated time.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to file a charge sheet in FIR in Crime No.60 of 2014 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent within the stipulated time. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the investigation in Crime No.60 of 2014 is almost completed and after getting opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the same will be filed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
A. Abdul Majeed Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give police protection to the petitioner's life and limb and to take necessary action against the Respondents 3 to 10.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give police protection to the petitioner's life and limb and to take necessary action against the Respondents 3 to 10. 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 and the opposite parties have arrived at a compromise and a copy of compromise affidavit has also been filed before this Court. Recording the said submission, this petition is closed....
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
B. Rajendran, J. 1. Today, this matter has come up for hearing under the caption "For Clarification" at the instance of the respondents. 2. The only clarification sought by the respondents was pursuant to the order of stay passed by this Court on 17.03.2016, based on which, the petitioner issued a contempt notice seeking for stoppage of construction. Whereas, the petitioner clearly stated that he has not sought for any stoppage of construction as the order of stay does not pertain to any construction. The above statement is recorded. 3. Accordingly, the matter stands clarified....
Sudha Lakshmi Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.9.2015 in Memo No.1055/BCDFGISSSV/2015 against the petitioner son Karthick @ Gautham, male aged 22 years, s/o.Kumar, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Karthick @ Gautham, aged 22 years, son of Kumar, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.1055/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 30.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand O...
N. Ramya Vs. The Territory Manager (LPG) Bharat Petroleum Corporation ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings TNJ:LPG:Thiruvarmbur dated 16.02.2012 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and pass further orders as this may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings TNJ:LPG:Thiruvarmbur dated 16.02.2012 and quash the same as illegal. 2. The only point which has been raised by the petitioner, who was a successful candidate and awarded highest mark, is that her case has been denied on the ground that the experience certificate produced by her was found to be false, however, without any notice. 3. First of all, according to the petitioner, the experience certificate is not found to be bogus and it is a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- Next ›
- Last »