S.SELVARAJ vs JATHANRAJA AND FOUR OTHERS Advocate - Thiru C. ARULTHAS — 28/2024
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR7R1. Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMY010010642024
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
218/2024
Filing Date
21-03-2024
Registration No
28/2024
Registration Date
12-04-2024
Court
District and Sessions Court, Mayiladuthurai
Judge
8-District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S.SELVARAJ
Adv. Thiru. K.M.SUBRAMANIAM,
Respondent(s)
JATHANRAJA AND FOUR OTHERS Advocate - Thiru C. ARULTHAS
District Superintendent Police, Mayiladuthurai
Tamil Nadu Director of Police
TamilNadu Home Secretary
Ravichandaran, Inspector of Police, Kuthalam P.s
Hearing History
Judge: 8-District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 12-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 19-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 13-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 27-01-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 28/2024 Court: District Court, Mayiladuthurai Date: 12.03.2026 Petitioner: S. Selvaraj Respondents: Jathanraja and four others The court examined the petitioner's claim for compensation against defendants 2-4. The court found that the first respondent's employment status and personal disputes with the petitioner are irrelevant to the case. The court noted a dismissed writ petition filed in the High Court. The case was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish that the first respondent is liable to pay compensation or that defendants 2-5 bear any responsibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 28/2024 Court: District Court, Mayiladuthurai Date: 12.03.2026 Petitioner: S. Selvaraj Respondents: Jathanraja and four others The court examined the petitioner's claim for compensation against defendants 2-4. The court found that the first respondent's employment status and personal disputes with the petitioner are irrelevant to the case. The court noted a dismissed writ petition filed in the High Court. The case was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish that the first respondent is liable to pay compensation or that defendants 2-5 bear any responsibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts