Dismissed

Irbaz Shoe Company v. State Rep. by Its

Madras HC1 Mar 2016CRL OP/858/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking police protection for a factory. Petitioner requested restraint on trade union activities within 200 meters. Court directed first respondent to consider representation and pass orders within two weeks. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders within two weeks. Petition disposed.

Irbaz Shoe Company Vs State Rep. by Its — Madras HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.03.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.858 of 2016

¶6

IRBAZ SHOE COMPANY REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING OFFICE AT SF.NO.82 GUDIYATHAM ROAD CHINNAVARAIKKAM VILLAGE AND POST AMBUR - 635 811, VELLORE DISTRICT .. Petitioner Versus 1 STATE REP. BY ITS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VELLORE, VELLORE DISTRICT 2 STATE REP. BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE UMARABATH POLICE STATION AMBUR, VELLORE DISTRICT 3 THE TAMIL NADU LEATHER AND LEATHER GOODS GENERAL LABOURS UNION HAVING OFFICE AT D.NO. 44/1 OLD STREET VALAYAMPET, VANAIAMPADI. (Third respondent is impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 09.02.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.1455 of 2016) .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to give adequate police protection for the petitioner's factory to run peacefully with its willing workers and staffs and restrain any trade unions, its members, office bearers, agents and outside supporters from assembling within a radius of 200 meters from petitioner's factory who are preventing free ingress and egress of men materials and vehicles etc.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jebadass Pandian For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr. C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking direction directing the respondents police to provide police protection for running the factory peacefully.

¶12

Even though third respondent was served with notice, no one represented on behalf of third respondent.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the first respondent is directed to consider the representation
of the petitioner dated 16.12.2015 and pass appropriate orders
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
4. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
mra
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VELLORE, VELLORE DISTRICT
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
UMARABATH POLICE STATION
AMBUR, VELLORE DISTRICT
3 THE TAMIL NADU LEATHER AND
LEATHER GOODS GENERAL LABOURS UNION
HAVING OFFICE AT D.NO. 44/1 OLD STREET
VALAYAMPET, VANAIAMPADI.
4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, MADRAS
+ 1 cc to M/s.S.Jebadass Pandian, Advocate SR 13068
ala(co)
prk10/3 Crl.O.P.No.858 of 2016

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Irbaz Shoe Company v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irbaz Shoe Company v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Arikrishnan Gounder Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Mahadevan Vs K.Shanmugam

R.Selvaraj Vs Mrs.v.v.Rethysree

U.Backialakshmi Vs the Commissioner of Police

Chinnappa Gounder Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K. Rathakrishnan Vs the Insepctor of Police