Chennai Madurai Court February 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.
R. Loganathan Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(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...
M. Janaki Vs. K. Vairamuthu
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
(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 ...
The Director of Elementary Education and Others Vs. T. Ramasamy and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-28-2016
(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...
R. Krishnan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to award adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to award adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that on a complaint given by the petitioner, petitioner enquiry is pending in CSR No.38 of 2016. 3. Under such circumstances, the Police should conduct thorough enquiry in CSR No.38 of 2016 and during enquiry, if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the opposite party, respondent police shall take appropriate action and give protection to the life and limb of the petitioner. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
B. Balaji Venkatesh Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st Respondent to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere in civil dispute based upon the complaint dated 15.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st Respondent to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere in civil dispute based upon the complaint dated 15.02.2016. 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, this petitioner has given a complaint against Andavar / 5th respondent herein and similarly, on a complaint given by the said Andavar against this petitioner, petition enquiry is pending before the 2nd respondent. 4. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to participate in the enquiry and during enquiry, he shall not be harassed. During the course of...
Patturaj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(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 ...
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 29.10.2015 made in W.A(MD)No.875 of 2015.) C.T. Selvam, J. 1. The petitioners seek review of the order passed by this Court in W.A(MD)No.875 of 2015 dated 29.10.2015. 2. Though the case of the 1st respondent has come to the attention of this Court time and again by way of writ proceedings, appeals against orders therein, we would restrict ourselves to the proceedings emanating from W.P(MD)No.17034 of 2014. 3. The 1st respondent moved such writ petition seeking the following relief:- ''To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders in R.C.No.222253/Rect.I(2)/2013, dated 23.8.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent and in Na.Ka.No.B1/3964/2014 dated 7.3.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent along with the relevant portions in annexure II referred to in Rule 14 of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordi...
S. Marimuthu and Others Vs. The Director General of Police, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(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...
A. Ayyavu and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(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...
Adaikkan Servai Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant appropriate permission and adequate police protection to celebrate the "Mattu Pongal Vizha Maavu Padayal Vizha and Annadanam Festival" on 22.02.2016 in Sri Periyanatchi Amman Temple situates in Valayappatti Ponnamaravahi Taluk Pudukkottai District on the eve of Masi Festival based on the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2016 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant appropriate permission and adequate police protection to celebrate the "Mattu Pongal Vizha Maavu Padayal Vizha and Annadanam Festival" on 22.02.2016 in Sri Periyanatchi Amman Temple situates in Valayappatti Ponnamaravahi Taluk Pudukkottai District on the eve of Masi Festival based on the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2016 within the time limit that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »