w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Chandamaran v/s State of Karnataka by Rural Police Station, Rep by SPP


Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

    Criminal Appeal No. 1192 of 2012

    Decided On, 13 January 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

    For the Appellant: B.S. Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent: Vijayakumar Majage, Addl.SPP.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2012 and order of conviction dated 14.06.2012 passed by the Additional Senior Judge, Chikmagalur in S.C.No. 72/2008-convicting the appellant/accused for the offence. P/U/S 504 and 302 of IPC. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay fine, he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 2 months for the offence P/U/S 302 of IPC. The appellant/accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay fine, he shall undergo further S.I. for a period of 15 days for the offence P/U/S 50 of IPC. Both sentences shall fun concurrently.)

1. The appellant was charged by the trial court for the offences punishable under section 504 and 302 IPC on the allegations that, on 28.02.2008 at about 4.00 p.m. on a road, in front of the house of the deceased Velayudhan, the accused in connection with the payment of some money towards tea consumed by him in the shop of Velayudhan, started abusing the Velayudhan in filthy language and strongly provoked himself and kicked said Velayudhan with his right knee on the private part. Due to the impact of the said blow the deceased Velayudhan succumbed to the blow. On these allegations the police have submitted a charge sheet before the trial court and infact the prosecutions in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined 10 witnesses and got marked 10 documents Ex.P.1 to P.10 and no material objects are exhibited before the court.

2. The trial court after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record has convicted the accused/appellant for the above said offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for two months in default for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 504 imposing a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is called in question in this appeal. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, out of which 2 witnesses PW-7 and 8, Harish and Prema, respectively are the eye witnesses to the incident and other witnesses are circumstantial witnesses.

3. PW–1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He receives the information hearsay from PW-7 and 8, Harish and prema that the accused kicked on the private part of the deceased. Thereafter he went to the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1. What has been written in the said Ex.P.1 is only with regard to the existence of a dispute between the deceased and the accused with reference to some amount due by the accused for having consumed tea in the shop of deceased Velayudhan. It is stated by PW-1 that as the deceased had received a low on his private part he was admitted to the hospital and he was brought back from the hospital to house and on the next day he died in the house. It is stated by him that the scrotum of the deceased was swollen.

4. PW-2 Somashekar spoke about the incident and presence of other witness PW–10 and 11 and the accused kicking the deceased. But further he has not stated that what is the reason for the accused kicking the deceased. He is also a witness to Ex.P.2 – spot mahazar. In the course of cross-examination he specifically stated that he has not witnessed the quarrel. However he stated that the deceased was already lying on the ground when he reached the spot.

5. PW-3 is another hearsay witness and he has also a witness to Ex.P.2 - spot mahazar and Ex.P.3 – inquest mahazar. He never stated anything about the accused, non implicating him to the crime. PW-4 Radha is the wife of the deceased. She stated that she came to know about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused. However she enquired with the deceased as to what happened and thereafter the deceased told her that, the accused kicked him because the accused has not paid the tea money and because he asked him for the money, the quarrel started. Though she is hear say to the incident but, the evidence given by her can be relied upon because immediately after the incident, the natural conduct of the deceased shows that he has informed his wife about the incident though this cannot be considered as a dying declaration. Nevertheless the immediate act of the deceased and the other witnesses can be relied upon, which happened in a natural course.

6. PW-5 N.K. Gopala is also hearsay witnesses. He came to know about the incident when he enquired about the incident in the village. PW-6 is also a similar witness as that of PW-5, who is also a hearsay witness and no reliance can be placed upon. PW-7 and 8 are the important witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased PW–7 is the son of the deceased and is an eye witness and PW–8 Prema who is the sister of the deceased, who are the persons actually present at the time of the incident. They have specifically stated that on the date of the incident the accused came to the shop of the deceased and consumed tea and he did not pay the money. When the deceased asked him to pay money, suddenly the accused picked up quarrel and due to the sudden quarrel he gave only one blow by kicking on the private part of the deceased and also it is stated that the accused has abused the deceased.

7. In the cross-examination more concentration has been bestowed in detail on the alleged complaint. But there is no material elicited during the cross–examination as to why these witness have to be disbelieved. No doubt in the course of cross-examination PW.7 it was suggested that he is not an eye witness and that the deceased did not die due to the kicking by the accused. Similarly PW-8 has stated the same factual aspects. Therefore there is no reason to disbelieve these two witnesses as there is nothing worth elicited in the cross examination to totally discard the evidence of these witnesses.

8. On taking us through the evidence of PW-9, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, no specific cause of death has been given by the doctor in the post mortem report, which is marked as Ex.P.4. The doctor has relied upon the RFSL report as per EX.P.5 and report of KMC College, Mangalore as per Ex.P.6. There is no mention of specific cause of death of the deceased, thus it is argued that, the prosecution has failed to prove the homicidal death of the deceased, therefore based on the evidence given by PW-9, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. We have carefully perused the evidence of the doctor. Of course he has not given any specific cause of death. Nevertheless he has stated that if a person is kicked on the private part, such death can occur. Though the specific cause of death is not mentioned, the eye witness’s version are there and surrounding circumstances are available with regard to the accused visiting the shop of the deceased Velayudhan and consuming tea and about the conservation that took place and thereafter the accused abusing the deceased in filthy language and kicking on the private of the deceased. Though there are some deficiencies in the evidence of PW-9 in not mentioning the specific cause of death of the deceased, but he has stated that such death may happen if a person without his knowledge kicked on the private part of the deceased. Therefore in our opinion the eye witness’s version is therefore believable though the medical evidence is not fully supporting. Normally when medical and ocular evidence are in different the eye witness’s version has to be preferred. Therefore we do not find any strong reason to discard the case of the prosecution merely because of the above.

9. PW-10 is the person who registered a case after receiving a report as per Ex.P.1 and dispatched the FIR as per – Ex.P.8 to the court, he has also drawn the, Spot Mahazars –Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. He has also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Nothing has been elicited in the course of the cross-examination as to why the above discussed evidence has to be disbelieved. In the absence of any strong material evidence elicited in the course of cross examination of any witness, in our opinion, the evidence adduced by the prosecution deserves to be accepted. Therefore we are of the opinion that, the trial court has properly and correctly convicted the accused person for the offence under Sec.504 IPC.

10. The question that remains for consideration is that whether the accused has committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Again we have bestowed our attention to the evidence of the eye witnesses. In fact PW-7 and PW-8 have stated in their evidence that, on that particular day the accused came to the canteen of the deceased and he was infact drunk on the particular day. After consuming tiffin and tea, the accused refused to pay the bill amount. When the deceased demanded for money, the accused abused him in filthy language and in that context, the father of PW-7 i.e., the deceased has demanded for money, When the accused stated abusing the deceased and in turn the deceased also questioned, him as to why he cannot pay the money and in turn abused the deceased, in that context. Suddenly the accused caught hold the deceased and kicked him on the private part. So in the above said circumstances spoken to by PW-7 and 8 clearly disclosed that when the accused had been to the shop of the deceased Velayudhan, he might not have any intention to cause any injury or even to commit the murder of the deceased. It appears that suddenly when the deceased asked for the money, he provoked himself and done such particular act against the deceased. Therefore in our opinion in the absence of any intention and specific knowledge that such blow is sufficient to cause the death of a person, the accused might not have any other intention to cause the death of the deceased.

11. Under these circumstances, it is worth to mention here a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 504 wherein the Honb’le Apex Court dealt with a case similar to this particular case. Wherein it is said that,

'Where the accused during the quarrel suddenly took axe and gave solitary blow on the back of head of the deceased resulting into his death. Medical evidence not showing that injury inflicted by itself would be sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. Accused could be imputed with knowledge that injury inflicted by him was likely to cause death. Conviction altered form Section 300 to one under Section 304, Part II of IPC.'

12. If the above factual aspects of that case as pointed out by the Apex court is applied to this case, in this case also the medical evidence is not so supportive of the prosecution case. On the other hand, the eye witness’s version also show that the incident happened in the sudden and for a moment due to provocation, by the accused himself. Therefore we are of the opinion the conviction recorded by the trial court under Section 302 may not be proper. However the prosecution case even accepted as it is it falls under Section 304 Part 2 of IPC for which the accused is liable to be convicted.

13. As the learned counsel strenuously contend that the accused was arrested on 3.3.2008 and released on 14.08.2008. Again he was arrested on 09.09.2001 and since then he has been in judicial custody. Therefore he has already undergone imprisonment for 6 years, 9 months and 3 days and the learned counsel seeks for a sentence equivalent to the period already undergone. We do not find any unreasonable demand made by the counsel in this regard. Therefore considering the status

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of the accused and the status of the family of the deceased and the surrounding circumstance, we are of the opinion that the period already undergone by him is sufficient because he has already undergone nearly seven years in jail and therefore giving set off of the period would be appropriate. 14. Therefore we feel it just and necessary to sentence the accused to undergo seven years of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 part B of IPC which would meet the ends of justice. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is partly allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction and sentence so far it relates to Section 504 of IPC is not disturbed iii. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 302 is hereby modified. The accused is convicted for the offence Under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence to undergo imprisonment for a Period of seven years. Both the sentence shall run concurrently. The Accused shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default he shall undergo simple Imprisonment for six month and the fine imposed under Section 504 shall Run consecutively. The accused is entitled for set off for the period already Undergone by him in the jail. iv. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-07-2020 K.P.P. Panneer Chelvan & Another Versus State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai City-I Detachment, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2020 D.Siluvai Venance (Wrongly mentioned as Permons) Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-07-2020 Narasimharao @ Appi & Others Versus State of Karnataka by Turuvekere Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2020 Vishwanath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
24-07-2020 P. Prabhavathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
23-07-2020 Syed Hidayath @ Chotu Dubbel Versus State by KG Halli PS Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2020 Vikram Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
22-07-2020 Y.M. Chetan & Another Versus State By Channarayapatna Town P.S, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
22-07-2020 V. Venkata Siva Kumar Versus Institute of Cost Accountants of India, Rep. by the President, M.K. Thakur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Sankar @ Jeyasankar @ Sivasankaran Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Udaiyalipatti Police Station, Pudukkottai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 M/s. Sarvodhaya Sangam Khadhi Vasthralayam, Rep. by its Secretary, Govindarajalu Versus S. Dhanalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-07-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by their Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Sivarajan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 A.N. Prakash Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Iqra Granite Crusher, Rep. by its Partner Ahamedulla Khan, Kolar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Asha & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Santhosha Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Radhakrishna Reddy & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 B. Manjunath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Koti Lingaiah & Another Versus State of Karnataka by, Rep. by Govt. Pleader, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2020 Kuppusamy & Another Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthukottai Sub Division, Tiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 Sharathkumar Versus The State of Karnataka by Annapoorneshwari, Rep. by its Government Pleader, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 Mohammed Shahid Khaleel Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 S.R. Ganesan Versus The State rep., by its, Principal Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 M.P. Lokesha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
08-07-2020 Waheed Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
07-07-2020 Dr. Y. Kedareswari Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (SC Development) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 Sunitha Krishnan Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 M/s. Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Red. by its Managing Director, Tera Chinnappa Reddy Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 B.A.S. Devi Prasad Versus The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2020 The Management of M/s. Therelek Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, S. Venkatramana Bhat Versus K. Dharman High Court of Karnataka
01-07-2020 M/s. Salem Constructions, A registered Partnership Firm, Rep. By its Managing Director, N. Selvam & Others Versus K. Santhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-06-2020 P.K. Thankappan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla Police Station, Thiruvalla [Crime No. 731 of 2009] Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
26-06-2020 Bismi Aquatic Products, Rep by its Partner, M. Ashraf Ali Versus The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Ramanathapuram & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-06-2020 Far N Par (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director Naraharisetti Sirusha Versus Galt Pharma Exports Private Limited, Secunderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
25-06-2020 M/s. Goodwill Leather Art Rep By its Prop Md Quddus ALi Alias Md Quddus Ali Molla Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-06-2020 Suresh Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
24-06-2020 Maruthi @ Polard Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
24-06-2020 V. Vasantha Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 The State rep.by. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Versus R.S. Bharathi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Tanveer Ahmed Versus State Women Police Station, Rep. State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
22-06-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-06-2020 A. Devaraj Versus The State of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 Prakasha Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Maria Lijose Kumar & Others Versus The State, Rep by The Inspector of Police, CBCID-HQRS, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2020 M. Nagalakshmi Versus Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 Md Kameual Islam & Others Versus The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-06-2020 M.V. Ramani Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Punnam Chander complex, Chowrastha, Hanmkonda, Warangal Versus Sangeraboina Uppalaiah & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-06-2020 G. Gnaneshwar Versus The State of A.P., rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB, Hyderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-06-2020 J. Antony Jayakumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home (Prison IV), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-06-2020 Sethupathi Ramalingam & Another Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 The Salem District Lorry Owners Association rep.by its President V. Chennakesavan Versus The Inspector of Factories, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 Rajeswari Versus The state rep by the Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Sakthivel Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Neyveli T.S. High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Chennai Garrtech Ltd., Rep. By its Director, L.S. Abinesha Babu Versus Inspector General of Registration, Santhome & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Jeyachandran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Public (Foreigners.I) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Anandan Versus State Rep by the Inspector of Police W-17, Peravallur Police Station Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 M. Parthasarathi & Another Versus The State Level Scrutiny Committee rep. by its Chairman Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Nisar Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Director General of Prosecution, High Court of, Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
03-06-2020 Somasundaram @ Somu Versus The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police Supreme Court of India
03-06-2020 Merugu Narsaiah @ Narsimha Reddy & Others Versus The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-06-2020 V. Saravanan Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 P. Venkatasubramani & Another Versus Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), Rep. by its Chairman Prof. M.H. Jawahirullah Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Dr. A.K. Sheik Manzoor Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Kalamani Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector of Vellore District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Subramani Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri District High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Balraj Versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-06-2020 A. Thangaraj Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-06-2020 A. Janakiraman Versus The Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Citizens Legal Right Association, Rep. by Its President, Joshy Kalluveettil & Another Versus Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
02-06-2020 C. Sasiyendran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai Versus A. Mathiyalagan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 Birin Spinning Mills Limited, Rep its Director D. Rangaswamy & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 Vazeer Khan & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
29-05-2020 Jayaramappa & Others Versus State by Sulibele Police Station, Rep by SPP & Another High Court of Karnataka