Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Anandham Manamagil Mandram vs The Superintendent Of Police on 27 April, 2009

Suvi Recreation Club vs The Superintendant Of Police on 15 December, 2021

2. The petitioner is a registered Recreation Club. The petitioner wants this Court to restrain the respondents from interfering with their usual activities. My attention is drawn to the judgment reported in 2009 (4) CTC 264, Anandham Manamagil Mandram v. The Superintendant of Police and others. In the said decision, the following directions were issued:
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Jai Recreation Club vs The Superintendant Of Police on 15 December, 2021

2. The petitioner is a registered Recreation Club. The petitioner wants this Court to restrain the respondents from interfering with their usual activities. My attention is drawn to the judgment reported in 2009 (4) CTC 264, Anandham Manamagil Mandram v. The Superintendant of Police and others. In the said decision, the following directions were issued:
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Durai Manamagil Mandram vs The Superintendent Of Police on 13 August, 2012

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-club viz., Durai Manamagil Mandram is functioning in Karaiyampatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, from December 2011 and registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The club was formed for serving the village people. It is conducting sports activities and functioning without any complaint. But, however, the Police are interfering with the day-to-day activities of the club. On 25.07.2012 a representation was sent by the petitioner to the respondent. A reference was made to the judgment of this Court reported 2009(4) CTC 26 (Anandham Manamagil Mandran Vs. The Superintendent of Police).
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Happy People Recreation Club vs The Superintendent Of Police on 7 April, 2026

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit and submitted that this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that upon verification, it was found that the petitioner had been previously implicated in Crime No.198 of 2015 on the file of the B2, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore, for the offences under Sections 51(a)(i) and 65 of the Copyright Act and had also been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur. He further contended that the petitioner has not furnished any specific instances or materials to show illegal interference by the police and is seeking a blanket order, which is not maintainable. It is also submitted that though the game of Rummy is considered a game of skill, playing the same for stakes, would amount to gambling and attract the provisions of the Tamilnadu Gaming Act, 1930. The police are empowered under the said Act to inspect premises upon reasonable suspicion of illegal activities. Further, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Director General of Police Vs. Mahalakshmi Cultural Associate [2012 (2) CTC 484], Anandham Manamagil Mandram Vs. the Superintendent of Police, [2009 (4) CTC 264] and M.M.Nagar Sports and Recreation Centre Vs. the Superintendent of Police [(2022) 3 MLJ 205], wherein guidelines have been issued regarding the functioning of recreation clubs and the powers of the police.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next