A Division Bench of the Madras High Court (P.K. Misra and K. Kannan, JJ.) allowed the writ petition filed by the Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for four Tuticorin advocates, a Courtalam man, a Courtalam man, a Courtalam man and a Courtalam man, who were rounded up at Courtalam in the early hours of 26 July 2007, detained at the police station and produced before the Magistrate at 11.30 a.m. with stick-mark injuries. Rejecting the police version of a public scuffle with a masseur, the court held the cane injuries proved assault in admitted police custody and that the State was vicariously liable. It awarded Rs.10,000 to each of the four advocates (Rs.40,000 total), leaving rival criminal complaints to trial. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 28 August 2008 in W.P. No. 29074 of 2007, the Madras High Court (Coram: P.K. Misra, K. Kannan, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the Police personnel, Courtalam/Tenkasi police (respondents 4-15), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 40,000.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Madras High Court judgment dated 28 August 2008 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“The inference is obvious. It is the police who were responsible for the injuries on lawyers.” (para 11)
The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 40,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
