Chennai Madurai Court December 2016 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.
A. Jana Vs. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent pertaining to its order bearing letter No.1214/H3/2015 dated 15.11.2016 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to remove the seal put up at the Toilet Blocks at the 3rd Respondent premises and permit the petitioner to continue the lease as per the agreement, dated 21.10.2015.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 15.11.2016 terminating the contract with the Petitioner in respect of maintaining the toilet at the third respondent/premises. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. Though the learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained on the reason t...
N. Pownraj Vs. The Secretary to Government, School Education Departmen ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 06.11.2012 made in Na.Ka.No:57/A2/2008 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner for the post of Head Master regularly from October 2012 onwards.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 06.11.2012 made in Na.Ka.No:57/A2/2008 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner for the post of Head Master regularly from October 2012 onwards. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has got M.Sc., M.Phil, and M.Ed., decrees. Thereafter he was appointed as Post Graduate Assistant (Maths) Teacher by the Managem...
Dr. Denzil Kudalane Vs. The Public Information Officer, Corporation of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to furnish the information to the Petitioner as he requested in his application dated 4.11.2016 within the stipulated period under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondent to furnish information to the Petitioner as requested by him in his application dated 4.11.2016 filed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perusing the materials placed before this Court, I am of the view that the present Writ Petition is highly pre-matured, more particularly, when the petitioner has got ample ...
The Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Janina Beevi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai in L.A.C.M.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1997 dated 01.02.1999 modifying the Award No.22/95-96 dated 22.03.1996.) 1. The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai in L.A.C.M.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1997 dated 01.02.1999 modifying the Award No.22/95-96 dated 22.03.1996, in and by which, the lower appellate Court had enhanced the compensation to the respondents herein. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and by consent, they are disposed of, by a common order. 3. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions would aver among other things in the affidavits filed in support of the Civil Revision Petitions that the lands measuring about 1.77.3 Hectares in S.Nos.116/1, 116/2A, 116/2B...
P. Aruldoss and Others Vs. The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk Office and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to survey and measure the petitioner's property comprised in S.No.81/6 A2 situated at Meenakshi Sundar Nagar, Venthoni Group, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2016.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to survey and measure the petitioner's property comprised in S.No.81/6 A2 situated at Meenakshi Sundar Nagar, Venthoni Group, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2016. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the above said representation submitted by the Petitioner to survey...
E. Saraswathi Vs. M. Rajendran, The Assistant Divisional Manager, PLI ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to issue notice to the Contemnor/respondent and punish him under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.11243 of 2014 on 12.09.2014.) 1. It is represented by both sides that the order passed in W.P(MD)No.11243 of 2014 on 12.09.2014, has been complied with. 2. Recording the above-said statement, the contempt petition is closed. No costs....
A. Saravanan Vs. The Executive Officer, Mela Chokkanathauram Town Panc ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to give drinking water connection to the Petitioner's house at Door No.1-1-178/4, Vinobaji Colony, Melachokkanathauram, Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District within a reasonable time fixed by this Court.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous, since the respondent has given water connection to the Petitioner's house, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Balasubramaniyan Vs. Jeyadevi, Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor for the disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9676 of 2013 dated 15.06.2015.) K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/contemnors submitted that the order passed by this Court has been complied with by issuing the proceedings, dated 14.12.2016, by the Assistant Commissioner of H.R and C.E., Tiruchirappalli. He has also produced a copy of the said order. 2. Recording the abovesaid submissions, this Contempt Petition is closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved against the said communication in any manner, it is open to him to resort to the remedy available under law. No costs....
K.L. Subramanian Vs. The District Revenue Officer
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to remove the sealed lock and hand-over the possession of the house property bearing Town Survey No.1014 situated at Door No.24, Mela Chithirai Street, Madurai City, Madurai to the Petitioner enabling him to hand over the possession to the purchaser by considering the representation dated 24.10.2016.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to remove the sealed lock and hand-over the possession of the house property bearing Town Survey No.1014 situated at Door No.24, Mela Chithirai Street, Madurai City, Madurai to the Petitioner enabling him to hand-over the possession to the purchaser by considering the representation dated 24.10.2016. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the a...
Pichammal Vs. Natarajan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.45 of 2009 dated 25.03.2010 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti, reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.244 of 2005, dated 09.07.2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kovilpatti.) 1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.244 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal. 2. The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.244 of 2005 for declaration that the suit second schedule property is a common lane and that for removal of encroachment made by the first defendant over the suit third schedule by putting up tin doors. 3. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed a rough sketch. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is described as ABCD in the plaint plan and that the common lane is shown as ADEG which lies in between the property of the fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »