Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.H1/1460/2014, dated 04.11.2015, quashing the same and consequently directing the respondent to restore the original allotment place, which is already earmarked by the respondent.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Claiming to be a resident of Udayalur, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, in public interest, seeking to quash the proceedings of the respondent, the District Collector, Thanjavur District, in Na.Ka.No.H1/1460/2014, dated 04.11.2015, by which, the District Collector has rejected the request of the petitioner, dated 27.02.2014, as well as the joint representation of presidents of, as many as eight village panchayats, dated 09.02.2014, stating that there is no need or necessity to change the place allocated for const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Rule 19 of the Family Court's Act, praying to set aside the order dated 09.04.2015 made in unnumbered H.M.O.P.No. of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli.) C.T. Selvam, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the rejection of a petition moved by the appellant, seeking relief under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The petitioner informed of being the wife of respondent, they having married on 02.06.1995, their being the parents of 2 children and of the respondent picking up vices and treating her cruelly. On such contentions, she sought dissolution of her marriage. 3. In passing the order under challenge, the Court below has observed that the Aadhar Card of the petitioner informed her year of birth as 1979 and since the date of marriage was informed to be 02.06.1995, the petitioner, on such date, would have been a minor, aged 16 years. It further noted that neither the marriage invitation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.06.2013 made in M.P.(MD).No.2of 2013 in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013.) J. Nisha Banu, J.] 1. The present Writ Appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 21.06.2013 made in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2013 in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013. 2. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013 and the appellants herein are the respondents in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013. The second respondent herein is the fourth respondent in W.P(MD).No.9915 of 2013. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned in the Writ Petition for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Appeal. 3. Extending the interim orders passed in a batch of writ petitions to give temporary approval to the teachers concerned in similar writ petitions, the respondent authorities were directed to pass orders granting necessary aid by way of salary to those teachers as temporary measure purs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Inspector of Police Y.Othakadai Madurai not to interfere into a civil subject matter in respect of the survey no. 42/1 B-3 Rajakambiram Pillai Madurai under the grave of conduction enquiry.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai, Madurai not to interfere into a civil subject matter in respect of the S.No.42/1B-3, Rajakambiram Pillai, Madurai under the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is seen that on a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, a regular case in Crime No.641 of 2015 has been registered against Ayyavu / 1st petitioner herein. 4. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the usual order of Not to Harass cannot be passed in this case and therefore, this Criminal Original...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnor for her wilful and wanton disobedience of the order to comply with the direction of this Hon'ble Court on 09.02.2015 passed in W.P(MD)No.14178 of 2014.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Alleging disobedience of the order, made in W.P(MD)No.14178 of 2014, dated 09.02.2015, Mr.T.N.Vidyanandan/party-in-person, has filed the present contempt petition, to punish the respondent/Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Chennai. 2. Facts in nutshell, giving rise to allegation of wilful and wanton disobedience of the order, made in W.P(MD)No.14178 of 2014, dated 09.02.2015, are that the party-in-person, has challenged G.O.No.2080, Education (D3) Department, dated 14.09.1977, and sought for a declaration, to declare the Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment) Rules, 1977, as inoperative, in the light of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 3. Before the Hon'ble Division Bench, in W....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to accept the petitioner as an Advocate for enrollment of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry on the basis of the petitioner's application dated 18.10.2013 submitted before the respondent.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. The petitioner, who has completed his B.L., Graduation in 2013 could not enroll, as an Advocate, on account of two criminal cases have been registered against him in Crime No.163 of 2010 and Crime No.23 of 2013 respectively on the file of the Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2. Material on record discloses that in Crime No.163 of 2010, on the file of Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed, which was taken on file C.C.No.293 of 2010, on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 29.09.2015, made in W.P.(MD)No.17561 of 2015.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order, made in W.P.(MD)No.17561 of 2015, dated 29.09.2015, by which, a learned single Judge has directed the Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, 1st appellant, to pass final orders, on the charge memo, in Na.Ka.No.29948/2004/F 1-2, dated 30.06.2004. 2. Material on record discloses that when the respondent was working in Dindigul Municipality, he was issued with a Charge memo, dated 30.08.2004, for certain irregularities, alleging that he has caused loss to the Dindigul Municipality. Reading of G.O.(D)No.150, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.04.2006, indicates that the respondent has been transferred from Dindigul Municipality and posted at Karur Municipality. By the above said Government Order, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Respondent No. 3 to 6 not to harass the petitioner and his family members without any legally sustainable complaint and to direct the Respondent No. 2 to follow the guideline issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in D.K.Basu (1997 1 SCC 416) case in matters pertaining to arrest or interrogation and consequently to direct the Respondent No. 2 to take action against the Respondent Nos.3,5 and 6.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 not to harass the petitioner and his family members without any legally sustainable complaint and to direct the 2nd respondent to follow the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in D.K.Basu (1997 1 SCC 416) case in matters pertaining to arrest or interrogation and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to take action against the respondent Nos.3,5 and 6. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents to return back the amount to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- (one Lakh ten thousand rupees only) deposit amount paid by the petitioner for shop Nos.32,59,15,3,13,10,1,14 Batlagundu Town Panchayat Bus Stand and daily market within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent / Batlagundu Town Panchayat Bus Stand submitted that he would suitably advise the third respondent not only in returning the Earnest Money Deposit, which is sought for in this Writ Petition, but also those participants who were unsuccessful in getting the tender of the third respondent. 2. Recording the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent Police not to harass the petitioner pending insolvency petition in I.P.No. 13 of 2015 on the file of the District Court Tirunelveli.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent Police not to harass the petitioner pending insolvency petition in I.P.No. 13 of 2015 on the file of the District Court Tirunelveli. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on a complaint given by one Seenivasan against this petitioner, petition enquiry is pending before the 3rd respondent. 4. The petitioner is directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, he shall not be harassed. During the course of enquiry, if any cognizable offence is made out, the respondent police is free to register ...
Tag this Judgment!