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



M. Kannabiran v/s State Rep. by The Inspector of Police (L & O), Chennai


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

    Crl.R.C. No. 56 of 2018

    Decided On, 10 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN

    For the Appellant: Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Surya Prakash, Government Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and conviction dated 16.12.2017 made in C.A.No.244 of 2015 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai, dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment and conviction and sentence in C.C.No.2345 of 2014 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Chennai, dated 14.08.2014 under Sections 354, 354(a), 336 and 506(ii) IPC and sentencing him under Section 354(A) for one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and praying to set aside the same.)

1. The learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent.

2. By consent, this Criminal Revision Case is taken up for final disposal.

3. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and conviction dated 16.12.2017 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai, in C.A.No.244 of 2015, dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Chennai, in C.C.No.2345 of 2014 dated 14.08.2014.

4. The case of the prosecution is that one Kannabiran, who is the petitioner herein/accused is residing nearby one portion of the victim's house. He always used to utter ugly words and always told to the victim that you are having a blind man as husband and he will help her in the night. The victim don't want to say regarding this to others, since she is having grown-up children. On 02.06.2014, when her son went outside for a marriage, in the house, her husband and her daughter were sleeping and in the early morning at about 4.15 a.m., the victim was doing domestic work and at that time, she noticed that one person was coming near her house and when she suddenly turned, she saw that the culprit Kannabiran/accused said that he wants to sleep with her and also he caught her hand and also he pressed her breasts. Immediately, she pushed the accused and shouted and cried for help. The accused immediately pressed the throat of the victim and said some bad ugly words and after her shouting, her daughter and neighbours rushed to the spot and the accused immediately, left her and run from the scene of occurrence.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 is not specific about the alleged charge and P.W.3 is a blind man and his evidence has to be eschewed and further contended that non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. in respect of an offence alleged to have committed under Sections 354 and 354 (A) IPC vitiates the entire investigation.

6. In short, the complainant was residing along with her blind husband and daughter and son. The appellant/accused is living in the same compound and he used to give sexual comments to the complainant by stating that since her husband is blind, invited her for sexual intercourse with him and caused mental agony to the complainant. Since the complainant is having grown up children, she tolerated all the misdeeds committed by the accused. On 02.06.2014, in the early hours of 4.15 a.m, when she was looking after her household work sensed that somebody is entering into the house and when she looked outside, there stood the accused stating that 'TAMIL' then he pulled her hands and embrazed her and put his hands on her breast thereby he outraged her modesty and caused mental agony and when the victim shouted and cried, the accused further pressed her neck with a knife like weapon and threatened her by stating that if she shouted, he will murder her by throttling her neck and thereby, he criminally intimidated her to cause death and thereby, the accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(A) and 506(i) of IPC.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, they have examined as many as six witnesses and all of them have given cogent evidence supporting the case of the prosecution and on the basis of the evidence and materials available, the learned Magistrate has come to a correct conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant/accused and convicted and sentenced him under the above said Sections.

8. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, her daughter, who was sleeping at that time and on hearing her mother's alarm voice, she came and saw that the accused pressing her mother's neck and shouting in an vulgar and obscene language and when she went to protect her mother, the accused ran away. The evidence of P.W.1 is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, who is her husband and he deposed in his evidence that since he is a blind man, he could not see the occurrence but could hear and sense the incident of the accused beating his wife and when he tried to catch hold of him, he ran away by pulling him aside and their evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, who deposed that they were walking in the main road and on hearing the lady voice, they went to see the place of occurrence and saw P.W.1 raising alarming voice and further P.W.1 was standing with her dress crushed and in a disturbed state and they saw some injury also on her left hand and also saw the accused running from there and all of them caught hold of him and handed over to the police.

9. In view of the clear and cogent evidence of P.W.1 which duly stands corroborates the complaint-Ex.P.1 and also the two independent witnesses, who are all the general public and caught hold of him and handed over to the police, both the Courts below have correctly come to a conclusion that the accused was present in the scene of occurrence and he ran away from the portion of P.W.1-victim and the evidence of P.W.1 was duly corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and though P.W.3, husband of P.W.1 is a blind man, he could sense what is happening in the house. From the prosecution witness, it is demonstrated before the Court that the accused had catch hold of a women's hand and breast and embraced her thereby, the accused had committed constitutes of an offence under Section 354 IPC and when any act done in the presence of woman is clearly suggestive sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief Section of 354 IPC and accused, was rightly held guilty of outraging modesty of the victim and hence, both the Courts below have correctly come to a conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 was duly corroborated by ocular evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, which stands corroborated by further evidence of P.W.4.

10. Sub-clause 3 of Section 354-A (3) reads as follows:-

3. "Sexual Harassment", meaning of.- The offence of 'sexual harassment' as defined in this Section can be caused by either of the following:

(i) either physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures;

(ii) or a demand or request for sexual favours;

(iii) or making sexually coloured remarks;

(iv) or forcibly showing pornography."

11. From the evidence of P.W.1-victim, both the Courts below have concurrently came to a correct conclusion that there is advances by the accused involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and also the words spoken to by the accused, as extracted above, are request for sexual favours and words commented thereupon being sexually with coloured remarks, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the accused have committed the offence under Section 354(A) of IPC which is well merited and well considered and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Weighing the words spoken to by the accused to P.W.1 with regard to the sexual advancement and unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, it is the duty of the trial Court to weigh the words spoken to by the accused under the 'common notions of mankind' which has to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. Accordingly, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity in arriving at a conclusion that the revision petitioner/accused has committed the offence under Section 354 (A) IPC against the victim. The concurrent findings of the Courts below do not warrant any interference.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused as an last attempt would contend that as laid down under Section 154 (1) of Cr.P.C., in respect of offences under Sections 354 and 354 (A) of IPC against the woman that the complaint has to be registered and enquired by a lady officer and in the instant case, the Investigating Officer is a male officer. Therefore, the investigation is bad in law.

13. I have given my anxious consideration to the said contention and I am unable to affix the seal of approval for the said contention for more than one reason. There is no delay on the part of P.W.1 in giving the complaint and handing over the accused to the police.

14. Section 154 (1) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

"154. Information in cognizable cases.- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under Section 326-A, Section 326-B, Section 354, Section 354-A, Section 354-B, Section 354-C, Section 354-D, Section 376, Section 376-A, Section 376-B, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer [emphasis supplied]"

15. Though it is desirable to record the substance of information by lady officer and every case has to be looked into keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, where the prosecution recording the statement and making an endorsement and registering FIR and hence, the same cannot be thrown out of consideration merely because, the substance of information was not recorded in the manner and it ought to have been recorded under Section 154 (1) of Cr.P.C.

16. After the amendment Act 13/2013 which coming into effect in 2013 provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under Section 326-A, Section 326-B, Section 354, Section 354-A, Section 354-B, Section 354-C, Section 354-D, Section 376, Section 376-A, Section 376-B, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.

17. Laying the emphasis on the underscored portion, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that since the information was recorded by a male officer, the same is bad in law. As observed by me in the earlier portion, there is no delay in registering. In respect of alleged offences under Sections 354 and 354-A of IPC and other Sections mentioned therein, by way of insertion, it is amended that such information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer. In the i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nstant case, no doubt true that FIR was registered by a male officer that does not by itself vitiating setting the criminal law into motion by P.W.1-victim girl. In the instant case, the word "shall" as noted in the amended portion has to be read as "may". Since there is no delay in filing the FIR, if any woman officer is available, it is always open to the Station House Officer to register the FIR. In the instant case, as on the facts and circumstances of the case as there is no delay on the part of P.W.1 and the accused has been caught by the general public and handed over to the police, I am of the considered view that the same will not be vitiated the investigation nor setting the criminal law into motion. 18. In this view of the matter, the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant stands negatived and the registration of FIR though by a male officer in respect of offences under Sections 354 and 354 (A) IPC is valid. 19. For the reasons stated above and in the absence of any other material, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below are confirmed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

13-05-2020 Anil Kumar @ Anil Versus State by Kodigehalli Police Station, Rep. by its Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
12-05-2020 Sheik Madhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition & Exercise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-05-2020 Vairavamurthy Versus The State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Voimedu Police Station, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-05-2020 Pallapu Jangaiah, R.R. District & Another Versus The State of A.P., rep. by PP., High Court High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-05-2020 Settu Versus The State, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Vallam Police Station, Thanjavur High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 The Management of M/s. Recipharm Pharma Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Assistant General Manager Versus G. Vasanthkumr & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-05-2020 State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai Versus M/s. PRP Exports, M/s. PRP Granites through its Power Agent/Partner, P. Sureshkumar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 Dr. Udayaravi & Another Versus State of Karnataka by CID, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
05-05-2020 S.K. Abhishek @ Abhi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
05-05-2020 Grievances Redressal Officer, M/s. Economic Times Internet Ltd., Haryana & Others Versus M/s. V.V. Minerals Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager & Power Agent, S. Krishnamurthy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-04-2020 A - Focus (Advocates - Focus), Rep. by its President Sangappa Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Chief Secretary to Government & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-04-2020 IFFCO-TOKIO GIC Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Versus Susheela & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-04-2020 Shaik Janimiya Versus State Bank of India, SAM Branch II, Rep by its Authorized Officer, Kachiguda, Hyderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-04-2020 P. Chandrasekhar Rao & Another Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-04-2020 P. Damodhar Versus The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited rep by its Joint Managing Director, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-04-2020 Dr. Mandira Sarkar & Others Versus State of Karnataka Department of Health & Family Welfare, Rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-04-2020 M. Sudarshan Goud & Others Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-04-2020 K. Bharathi Versus The State rep.by its Principal Secretary, Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-04-2020 Hindu Munnani, Rep by its state secretary, K. Kuttalanathan & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-04-2020 Balamurugan Versus The State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-04-2020 Ameed Versus The State of Karnataka, Through Gundlupet PS., Rep. by Spp High Court, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
16-04-2020 Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam rep. by its Organising Secretary R.S. Bharathi "Anna Arivalayam" Chennai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 India Awake for Transparency, Rep. by its Director, Rajender Kumar Versus The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-04-2020 P.A. Josseph Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-03-2020 Bala Krishna Mandapati Versus The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Chief Secretary, Revenue (Disaster Management-II), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-03-2020 L.C. Nagaraja Versus The State by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Rep. by its Standing Counsel, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-03-2020 B. Sivakumar & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-2020 G. Rajesh Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-03-2020 V. Radha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-03-2020 State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector, Namakkal & Another Versus Marimuthu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-03-2020 The State, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras Versus Vazhivittan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-03-2020 Stephen Steward & others Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkatta & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
18-03-2020 N.C. Lakshmi Narasimhan Versus The State rep. by Inspector of Police, W-32 All Women Police Station, Madipakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 M/s. COPCO Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director K. George Versus Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 VVR Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Rep By Its Chairman, V. Sambasiva Rao Versus Chennupathi Hanumantha Rao National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 S. Stella Marry Versus Union of India, Rep, by Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
17-03-2020 Asst. S.I. of Police, Adimaly, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala Versus Saidumuhammed & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-03-2020 P. Suresh Versus State Rep.by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pattabiram Range, (T-11, Thirunindravur Incharge) High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 P. Thenmozhi Versus Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 P. Thenmozhi Versus Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai & Another Supreme Court of India
16-03-2020 D. Karuppayee Ammal Versus Arulmigu Ayyanar koil, Arulmigu Manthaiamman Kovil, Arulmigu Muniyandieswar Temple, Rep. by its Trustee & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 A. Pandi Selvi Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2020 Sankar Prasad Bose & Another Versus M/s. Shitala Construction Rep. by Ajit Panja & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Ramu Kalanjiam Venkataraman, Director, M/s. Lakshmi Petro Pvt Ltd., Chennai Versus M/s. Paceman Finance India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Elumalai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Tamil Nadu Hdpe Knitted Fabrics Manufacturess Association & Others Versus V.K.A. Polymers Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Karuppannan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2020 Tamilarasan & Another Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Madurai District & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-03-2020 Ernakulum Medical Centre, Rep. By Its Director, Palarivattom & Another Versus Dr. P.R. Jayasree & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 V. Angayarkanni Versus Union of India, Rep, by its Secretary, Planning Commission, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
12-03-2020 Deivendiran & Others Versus State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Thoothukudi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-03-2020 K. Dharmaraj & Others Versus Sir M.Ct.Muthaiah Chettiar, Higher Secondary School Trust, Rep. by its President, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Rep. by its Registrar, Tirunelveli Versus Dr. X. Rosary Mary, Director, Department of Youth Welfare, The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-03-2020 A. Maadhuraju Versus The State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Dept., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Arjunan Versus State rep.by Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Omalur Sub Division), Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Chennai Hoardings Association, rep. by its President K.C. Chandrasekaran, Ambattur Versus The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 S. Nijam Ali @ Nijam Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Kochi Branch High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 Muppa Venkateswara Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
10-03-2020 V. Aruna Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-03-2020 M/s. Professional Management Consultants (P) Ltd., Chennai Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation, Rep by its Joint Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Senior General Manager, Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project Ministry of Defence, Trichy Versus The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. By its Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Citi-financial Retail Services India Ltd., Rep. by its Assistant Manager-Collections J. Srikumar Versus Dove Finance Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai & Another Versus Rane Brake Linings Limited, Rep. by its Vice President Finance & Secretary V. Krishnan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 A. Gunasekaran & Others Versus Minor Eswararaj, Rep. By next friend and guardian mother Premalatha & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Aided Primary School, rep. by its Secretary, Thazhambadi, Puduchathiram Union, Namakkal District Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Raja Versus State rep. by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam Inner Division, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-03-2020 Dr. S. Selvarajan Versus The Union of India, Rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH, Earlier Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Tirunelveli Solar Project Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Mr.P.Elavarasu, Asst. General Manager – Project, Rajasthan Versus Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Raja Versus State rep. by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam Inner Division, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-03-2020 Deva @ Devaraj Versus The State of Karnataka by Kamalapur Police Station, Rep. by Addl. SPP & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
06-03-2020 S. Raja Versus State rep by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanyakumari & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-03-2020 Rajesh Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-03-2020 Arulmigu Velukkai Sri Azhagiya, Singaperumal Devasthanam, Rep. by its Trustees A. Venkatarayalu & Others Versus G.K. Kannan (Deceased) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Lakshmanan Versus The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 The Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University, Rep by its Registrar, Chennai Versus The Doctors Welfare Association of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its General Secretary, Dr. K. Srinivasan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 S. Shybudheen, Rep. by his power of attorney agent, Ziauddin Ahmed Versus Reyhana Shmeem Begam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Kombanaipudur Womens Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary, T. Thirunavukkarasu Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Erode High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 M/s. Sree Neelalohita Associates Rep by its Managing Partner Versus M.A. Aleem & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2020 Captain Paida Janardhana Reddy (died) per LRs P. Malathi & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Commissioner & Inspector General, Registration & Stamps Department High Court of Andhra Pradesh
04-03-2020 V. Nalini, Proprietrix : M/s. Visual, Experanto, Chennai Versus The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Rep.by its Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police-III) Department, Chennai & Others Versus R. Anbarasan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Palanivel @ Prakash Versus State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 K.628, Keeranatham Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary, V. Soundararajna Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Watd - 2 (5), CBE, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Indian Society for Technical Education, Rep., by its Executive Secretary, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi Versus Anna University, Rep., by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 N. Baskaran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Ramanathapuram Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-03-2020 Kiran Kumar Dhappuri & Others Versus The State of Telangana., Rep., PP & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 Birru Prathap Reddy & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
02-03-2020 Rasheed Ali Khan, Hyd Versus Jitender Kumar Guptha, Rep. By P.P. & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 S. Suganthi Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Samanthi Versus The State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Pragalathan & Another Versus State rep. by the Station House Officer, Karaikal High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 All India Drugs Control Officers Confederation, Rep. by its President, M. Dhilip Kumar Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Razia Sultana Waqf Alal Aulad Trust, (Private Trust), Rep. by its Trustees & Another Versus Amaludeen (Died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Dr. P. Balakrishnan Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 M/s. S.S. Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietrix S. Sumathi, Through her power agent R. Sivaramakrishnan Versus The District Collector, Erode High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. ASR Dredging Services Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Kochi Versus M/s. Chennai Post Trust, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Gayathri Ravishankar Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-02-2020 V.V. Titanium Pigments Private Ltd., Rep.by its General Manager, Tuticorin Versus The District Collector, Thoothukudi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box