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



R. Silambarasan v/s The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Irmbulli Police Station, Udayarpalayam Taluk


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

    CRL.A. No. 90 of 2011

    Decided On, 18 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

    For the Appellant: N.A. Kareem, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Ravichandran, Government Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment dated 19.01.2011 in S.C.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the Mahila Court, Perambalur.)

1. The appellant/accused being aggrieved of the conviction passed on 19.01.2011 in S.C.No.7 of 2008, on the file of the Mahila Court, Perambalur for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default in payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment, has preferred this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :- P.W.1, the grand-father of the deceased lodged a complaint on 12.06.2006, alleging that his grand-daughter, the victim was under his custody and she completed her eighth standard school studies. While so, the deceased fell in love with the accused and accused used to present the poems and photos. After coming to understand about the love affair between the accused and the deceased, on 11.06.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., there was panchayath held with the accused and others. During the panchayath, the accused and his parents refused to marry the deceased and further the accused stated that he do not bother even though the deceased died. After panchayath, at about 1.00 a.m., the deceased went to the cattle shed of the accused and hanged herself and died. In the said panchayat Poonusamy, Selvaraj, Thangamuthu, Mannar, Kasi and one Selvakumar were also present and they had knowledge about the incident.

3. Upon receipt of the complaint the respondent registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2006 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC under Ex.P.9 against the appellant and two others. The respondent proceeded to the place of occurrence and removed the dead body and sent the same for conducting postmortem. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been laid against all the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The trial Court framed the charges for the offence under Section 306 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and produced material objections M.O.1 to M.O.9. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and accused did not choose to lead any evidence. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge i/c Mahila Court, Perambalur, acquitted the second and third accused, found guilty the appellant/first accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. As against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the grand-father of the victim only lodged the complaint when the father and mother of the deceased are very much alive. P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are close relatives to the deceased and their evidence are stereo type and tutored one. No such panchayath was held on 11.06.2006 and no one was examined in respect of the said panchayath. There is no evidence of panchayath and no one has spoken about the panchayath and its date and time, except P.W.1.

6. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the accused 2 and 3 were also standing in the same footing as like the appellant/first accused and they were acquitted, and hence the appellant is also liable to be acquitted. Further P.Ws.2,3,4,6 and 7 turned hostile and P.W.5, the father of the deceased is a hear-say witness and as such his evidence cannot be considered, even though it supported the prosecution case. P.W.8, the mother of the deceased deposed that she attended the panchayath and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. But, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.5, the father of the deceased, he did not whispered about the presence of P.W.8 and categorically admitted that he was not present on the date of panchayat and only after the death of the deceased, he reached the place of occurrence.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that the death of the deceased is unnatural and as such the respondent ought to have referred the case to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct enquiry and the failure of referring for the Revenue Divisional Officer's enquiry is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that P.W.12, the Investigating Officer deposed as against the prosecution case and he categorically admitted the fact that he did not mentioned the place of panchayath and P.W.1 did not whisper about the alleged words uttered by the first accused. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt and without considering all the above facts, the learned Judge wrongly convicted the accused. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal.

9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that it is on account of the fact that the first accused uttered words to the deceased in the panchayath, she was forced to commit suicide by hanging herself. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that the appellant/first accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. To that effect, the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8, supported the case of the prosecution, wherein the first accused refused to marry the deceased and the accused 2 and 3, who are the parents of the first accused were also supported him. Therefore, he submitted that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been proved and it is on account of the said fact the deceased having humiliation herself committed suicide and there is a justification in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10. Heard the rival submissions made by Mr.N.A.Kareem, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed before this Court.

11. Whether, the prosecution has proved that the deceased committed suicide due to the abetment of the accused as he uttered filthy words against the deceased? If so, the conviction and sentence are liable to be interfered with?

12. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was staying along with him and fell in love with the first accused/appellant. When the love affair came to the light, the first accused came to the village from Chennai, they conducted panchayath on 11.06.2006. In the said panchayath, the first accused and his parents refused to marry the deceased and also the first accused uttered filthy words against the deceased. Immediately thereafter, the deceased was left from the panchayath and committed suicide in the cattle shed belongs to the first accused. Even though there was so many persons attended panchayath, no one was examined to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. In fact the date and time of the panchayat was not at all stated in the statement of P.W.1. 13. The prosecution marked Ex.P.2, the letter written by the first accused. It is seen from the Ex.P.2, no address was mentioned and to whom it was sent and no particulars are there. Further to prove that it was written by the first accused, no hand writing expert opinion obtained by the prosecution compared with the hand writing of the first accused. Even assuming that the said letter had been written by the first accused, it is nothing to do with the alleged love affair between the deceased and first accused. It reads as follows :-

'LANGUAGE'

As such, Ex.P.2 cannot be construed as love letter and the prosecution failed to prove the love affair between the deceased and the first appellant.

14. It is also seen from the records, except P.W.1, other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Even though, P.Ws.5 and 8 the parents of the deceased supported the case of the prosecution, P.W.5 is only hear-say witness and P.W.8 has completely contradicted one. P.W.1 categorically deposed that when the panchayath was held only Poonusamy, Selvaraj, Thangamuthu, Mannar, Kasi and one Selvakumar were present and it is also corroborated by P.W.5. It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.8, she attended the panchayath and in the panchayath, the first accused refused to marry her daughter. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.8 is not believable one and not supporting the case of the prosecution.

15. It is also seen from the evidence of Investigating Officer, P.W.11, he did not supported the case of the prosecution. The portion of his cross-examination is read as follows :-

'LANGUAGE'

It is true that in the alleged panchayath, P.Ws.1, 5 and 8 did not participate and as such their evidence cannot be looked into.

16. Now, it has to be examined on account of the uttered filthy words towards the deceased that has made her to commit suicide. Section 306 IPC reads as follows :-

"306. Abetment of suicide If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

To pass the conviction for the offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to make out the commission of suicide by a person and the accused has abetted the commission of suicide there of. If the acts of abetment proved, the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 306. On going through the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no evidence to believe that the act of the appellant to the deceased to drive her to commit suicide. In the absence of proving the ingredients of Section 306 IPC the question of passing the conviction would not arise.

17. In the case of "Sathish Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1997 Crl LJ 935" it observed as follows :-

"What was really required to be found out was as to whether the accused intended by not marrying that she would commit suicide or whether he knew that she was likely to commit suicide. The learned Sessions Judge has precisely avoided to fix up this intention or knowledge on the part of the accused so as to hold him guilty of the abetment".

18. In the judgment reported in "2010 AR SC 512 - Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal" the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, after considering the various judgments observed in paragraph 15 held as follows :-

"Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."

19. In another case of "Gangula Mohan Reddy vs State Of Andra Pradesh reported in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

(2010) 1 SCC 750" the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that :- "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide there can be no conviction. It was further held that to attract 306 of IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence" 20. On the careful scrutiny of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, this Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Principal District and Session Judge i/c Mahila Court, Perambalur has erred in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC, though the incriminating evidences are not proved. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed and the order dated 19.01.2011 passed in S.C.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge i/c Mahila Court, Perambalur is hereby set aside and the appellant/accused acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-08-2020 G. Jayasri Versus The State, Rep. By the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 R. Kannan Versus State rep by the Inspector of Police, Inamkulathur Police Station, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-07-2020 Garikipati Bulli Nayana Versus M/s. M.S.R. Housing & Resorts Private Limited rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-07-2020 Bhagyamma Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sheshadripuram Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 K.G. Ravikiran Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 M/s. Linga Transformers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Villupuram & Another Versus Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 S. Sachin Narayan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Cantonment Versus Kaanikkaimery & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-07-2020 R. Ramesh Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary & Another High Court of Karnataka
27-07-2020 T. Ranjeeth Singh Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
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 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
24-07-2020 Narasimharao @ Appi & Others Versus State of Karnataka by Turuvekere Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
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
16-07-2020 G. Suneetha Versus The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-07-2020 Vankudoth Swathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat & 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 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 Radhakrishna Reddy & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore 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 Santhosha Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 A.N. Prakash 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
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 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 Mohammed Shahid Khaleel Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
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
08-07-2020 Sakunthala Versus State Rep. By the Inspector of Police Supreme Court of India
08-07-2020 M. Alagappan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
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 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
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
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
01-07-2020 K.T. Augustian Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary, Irrigation Dept., Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
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 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
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
25-06-2020 Suresh Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
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
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 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 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 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 Maria Lijose Kumar & Others Versus The State, Rep by The Inspector of Police, CBCID-HQRS, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 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 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Prakasha Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
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 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 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 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 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
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
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 Rajeswari Versus The state rep by the Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam 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
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 Nisar Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Director General of Prosecution, High Court of, Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
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 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 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 Chennai Garrtech Ltd., Rep. By its Director, L.S. Abinesha Babu Versus Inspector General of Registration, Santhome & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 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
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 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 Somasundaram @ Somu Versus The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police Supreme Court of India
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
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