Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.08.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.2069 of 2012.) Prayer in WP(MD).2069 of 2012 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by call for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.1252/98 dated 17.02.2011 and quash the same and may consequently direct the respondents to change the patta and other revenue records of Sy.No.23/4 measuring 0.08.0 hectares, Sy.No. 23/8A measuring 0.08.0 hectares, 23/5A measuring 0.19.5 hectares of Kuravakudi Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, in the name of the 1st petitioner and Sy.No.16/9A measuring 77 cents and Sy.No. 16/9C measuring 1.09 acres of Kuravakudi Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, in the name of the 2nd petitioner.) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of return dated 26.10.2015 passed in unnumbered Cr.M.P.No. of 2015 in P.R.No.445 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam to number the same and to pass orders on merits. 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the order of return dated 26.10.2015 passed in unnumbered Cr.M.P.No. of 2015 in P.R.No.445 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam to number the same and to pass orders on merits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-67-AH-0499, belonging to the petitioner's company, namely, Shanthi Transport Corporation, while proceeding towards Rajapalaym from Madurai, colluded with a two wheeler, which resulted in attacking the bus driver with stone and bricks and also broke the rear glass of the bus and TV sets. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondents to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.12.2015 and further direct them to investigate the matter in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.12.2015 and further direct them to investigate the matter in accordance with law. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she has preferred a complaint to the respondent on 05.12.2015 against on Sahaya Arputharaj, Anantha Munirajan, Subramaniyam and others for preparing false documents by forging the petitioner's signature and illegally registering the marriage vide Certificate of Registration No.75 of 2013 dated 15.05.2013 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Nagalnaickenpatty, Dindigul District, which act attracts the offences under Sections 120(B), 417, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. 2.1. It is submitted by the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in S.C.No.94 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as illegal, improper, unlawful, unconstitutional and arbitrary.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in S.C.No.94 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties. 2. It is seen that a case in Crime No.10 of 2012 for offences under Sections 376, 506(i) r/w 109 IPC has been registered against the petitioners/Accused. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid for offences under Sections 376(2)(g) r/w 34 and 109 IPC and the same was taken on file after committal in S.C.No.94 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioners/Accused have submitted that the accused persons and the defacto complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order and decretal order dated 29.01.2007 passed in I.A.No.142 of 2005 in A.S(SR)No.1398 of 2005 by the District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.) Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order and decretal order dated 29.01.2007 passed in I.A.No.141 of 2005 in A.S(SR)No.1392 of 2005 by the District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.) Common Order: C.R.P(MD)No.525 of 2007 is filed challenging the order made in I.A.No.142 of 2005 in A.S(SR)No.1398 of 2005 dated 29.01.2007 on the file of District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, wherein and whereby, the delay of 539 days in filing the appeal was condoned. The said appeal was filed with such delay against the Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.1208 of 1993 dated 15.12.2003 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. The said suit was filed seeking for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records and to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1306 of 2015 in C.A.No.82 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, dated 1.12.2015 and suspend the sentence passed in C.C.No.35 of 2014 dated 12.05.2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has focussed the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order, dated 1.12.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1306 of 2015 in C.A.No.82 of 2015, passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur. The Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.1306 of 2015 in Crl.A.No.82 of 2015(filed by the Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Accused), had among other things, observed the following: Heard both sides. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: 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 order in Na.Ka.No.165/2015 dated 23.11.2015 and consequential Impugned order in Na.Ka.No.166/2015 dated 23.11.2015 on the file of respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondent No.2 from evicting the petitioners from their shop in shops No.19, 20, 7, 10, 13, 12, 18, 24, 25, 8, 14 at TUFIDCO shopping complex and T.Kallupatti Town Panchayat Bus stand commercial complex, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.) The petitioners are the lessees of shops at T.Kallupatti Town Panchayat Bus stand commercial complex. They are aggrieved against the tender notification issued for tender-cum- auction of those shops for a period commencing from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2018. 2. Though the writ petition was filed by raising also by raising a ground that the petitioners are entitled for renewal of license,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Impugned notification issued by the 2nd respondent published in the Gazette of India(Extraordinary) in part-II Section 3-Sub Section (ii) dated 13.05.2014 in S.O. 1267/E in respect of the landed property in survey No.34/1 (part) to an extent of 8478 sq.mt. 34/2 (part) to an extent of 965 sq.mt, 35/1 (part) to an extent of 480 (part) sq.mt. 35/2 (part) to extent of 3080 sq. mt. 35/3 (part) to an extent of 432 sq.mt 35/4 (part) to an extent extent of 281 sq.mt. 35/5 (part) to an extent of 5109 sq.mt situated at Natham pannai, Pudukottai Taluk, Pudukottai District and the consequential impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.35966/2013 (National Highways) B7 dated 09.07.2014 and the consequential impugned notification issued by the second respondent in S.O.2703(E) dated 20.10.2014 in respect of the above mentione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Mandamus (i) forbearing the respondents from performing the Mahakumbabishekam of Sri Ramanathaswamy Thirukoil, Rameswaram on 20.1.2016 or any subsequent date without resorting/ replacing/repairing the idols by adhering to the tenets and (ii) forbearing the respondents from performing the Kumbabishekam for Lord Ramanatha Swamy temple, Rameswaram on 20.1.2016.) Common Order 1. The petitioners have come up with these writ petitions seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from performing the Mahakumbabishekam of Sri Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameswaram, scheduled to be held on 20.1.2016. 2. We have heard Mr.K.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first writ petition, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the second writ petition and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to give Police Protection to the petitioner, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC and office bearers of TELC on 28.11.2015 and two months thereafter at Tranquebar House, Trichy-1 to avoid untoward incidents.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to give Police Protection to the petitioner, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and office bearers of TELC on 28.11.2015 and two months thereafter at Tranquebar House, Trichy-1 to avoid untoward incidents. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows: i) The petitioner has submitted that he is an Advocate and appointed as Legal Adviser of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (in short TELC ?) by Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC. It is submitted that though Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop TELC has been elected legally, Mr.E.D.Charles causes hindrance to the smooth administration in respect of Churches,...
Tag this Judgment!