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

Part Heard

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

CodeofCivilProcedure Section OR7R1

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

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

12-03-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence/Deposition

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Mayiladuthurai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case