Chennai Madurai Court November 2015 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Monikandan Kunju Pillai Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Pa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondent not to impound the passport in No.Z3108503 of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the respondent dated 15.09.2015 on the basis of the clarification dated 28.09.2015 given by the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondent not to impound the Passport No.Z3108503 of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the respondent dated 15.09.2015 on the basis of the clarification dated 28.09.2015 given by him. 2. The petitioner was issued with a passport No.Z3108503. According to the respondent, after issuance of the said passport, an adverse police verification report was received stating that the criminal case in Crime No.549 of 2011 is pending on the file of Varapuzha Police Station, Kerala State. Therefore, the respondent issued to the impugned communication dated 15.09.2015 calling upon the petitioner to produce prop...
N. Gunasekaran Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to extend the pay revision benefit and 4th and 5th review benefit to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.61 Transport Department dated 30.04.2015 and in terms of Settlement dated 22.01.2011 entered into under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act and to direct the respondents to pay his difference in salary, difference in monthly pension and difference amount in his retirement benefits including gratuity, leave salary and the commuted value of pension based on the above Government Order and settlement.) 1. Though the prayer in the writ petition is widely worded, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if his representation dated 18.06.2015 is disposed of by the third respondent by taking into account G.O.Ms.No.61 Transport Department dated 30.04.2015 and also 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Ac...
R.S. Seenivasan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing thefirst respondent herein to dispose of the impleading petition filed by the petitioner in Revision No.76286/2012 pending on the file of the first respondent in respect of joint patta No.269 under the name of 1.Suriya Narayana Iyer 2.A.R.M.Nagenthira Iyer Dharma Sasanam Trust represented by A.V.Kuppusamy and 3.R.Seshiyer i.e. father of the petitioner, within the time stipulated by this Court ) 1. In respect of the patta proceedings, a revision came to be filed before the first respondent by the aggrieved parties, wherein, the petitioner filed an application seeking to implead himself as a party, by contending that his interest would be affected, if the revision is considered and decided, without hearing him as a party to the said proceedings. Such impleading petition filed on 19.02.2014 is opposed by the revision petitioners by filing their counter statement on 13.08.2014....
R.K. Steels, Tuticorin rep. by its partner S. Rajagopal Vs. The Appell ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in Na.ka./A1/632/2013 dated 04.10.2013 and quash the same and consequently, directing the first respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. in W.P(MD)No.20331 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in Na.ka./A1/633/2013 dated 04.10.2013 and quash the same and consequently, directing the first respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law.) Common Order: 1. Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the orders of the first respondent, dated 04.10.2013, reje...
The Inspector General of Registration, Pattinapakkam, Chennai and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: W.A.(MD)No.998 of 2015: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 31.07.2015, made in W.P.(MD)No.5484 of 2015. W.A.(MD)No.998 of 2015: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 31.07.2015, made in W.P.(MD)No.5485 of 2015.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The Inspector General of Registration of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Sub-Registrar of Tallakulam, Madurai, have come up with the above writ appeals challenging a common order passed by a learned Judge in two writ petitions filed by the respondent herein, seeking a direction to the appellants to register and return a sale deed and a gift deed presented for registration. 2. We have heard Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants and Mr.J.Barathan, the respondent, appearing in person. 3. Under a sale deed executed by one Mr.V.Balasubramanian on 15.12.2014, claiming to be the power agent of the owners Mrs.A.Balamani an...
Selvi Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanyakumari District and Oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to recognize the affidavit sworn in by the petitioner in Annexure-K based on the report of the second respondent dated 04.06.2015 in Na.Ka.No.Aa1/3236/2015 and return the original affidavit sworn in Annexure-K forthwith, without further delay.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to recognize the affidavit sworn by her in Annexure-K based on the report of the second respondent dated 04.06.2015 and return the original affidavit, forthwith. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the second respondent has forwarded the Annexure-K sworn in by the petitioner to the first respondent through her proceedings dated 04.06.2015, till this date, the first respondent has not recognised such affidavit and returned the original affidavit to the petitioner, inspite of the fact that such affidavit is necessary for getting a pa...
V. Murugan Vs. The Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu General and Distribution ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider the representation dated 23.11.2015, for genuine claim of the petitioner.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty. No Costs....
V. Subramanian Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Principal Secr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to call for the records to the common order dated 21.09.2010 made in W.P(MD)No.11971 of 2010.) Common Judgment: V. Ramasubramanian, J. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has made an endorsement seeking permission to withdraw these writ appeals. Therefore, these writ appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs....
Dr. P. Chandramohan Vs. The Madurai Kamaraj University, Rep. by the Re ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Art History with the respondent University in Ref.V/Appt./AP/MKU/2014, dated 07.07.2014 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Art History within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Dr.P.Chandramohan, who was working in Madurai Kamaraj University as Guest Lecturer in the Department of Art History, Aesthetics and Fine Arts, has challenged the impugned order of appointment of the fourth respondent Mr.K.A.Babu to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Arts History with the respondent university in Ref.No.V/Appt./AP/MKU/2014...
S. Jeyan Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a copy of the impugned order passed by the first respondent on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a copy of the order made by the first respondent based on his representation dated 21.05.2015. 2. Through the said representation, dated 21.05.2015, the petitioner has sought for the issuance of the order passed by the District Collector to take possession of the subject matter of property from the petitioner and hand over the same to the Authorized Officer of the Bank with proper acknowledgment. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, after notice, the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent supplied the order passed by the first respondent dated 23.04.2015 to the learned Counsel appearin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »