Skip to content

Chennai Madurai Court March 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.

Mar 22 2016

Vijaya Ragavan Vs. The Divisional Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, ...

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-22-2016

(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2015 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he made a representation before the respondents on 26.11.2015 to disconnect the service connection, where the tenant is residing. 2. Without the tenant asking for disconnection, this Court cannot give such a direction. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs....


Mar 22 2016

Bakeer Maideen and Another Vs. State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, ...

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-22-2016

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to expedite the investigation in connection with Crime No. 175 of 2015 on the file of the respondent and conclude the same within a time frame as specified by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the respondent police to expedite the investigation in connection with Crime No. 175 of 2015 on the file of the respondent and conclude the same. 2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that if some more time is granted by this Court, the investigation would be completed and final report would be filed by the respondent before the concerned Court. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent police to complete the investigation in Crime No.175 of 2015 and to file a final report before the concerned jurisdictional Co...


Mar 22 2016

M. Subramanian @ Suresh Vs. The Secretary (Health and FW), Department ...

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-22-2016

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2016 and to order the concerned Medical Officer to put the petitioner deafness for fair medical examination and to order to give the appropriate physically-challenged certificate based on the petition dated 22.02.2016 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petitionfor a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2016 and to order the concerned Medical Officer to put the petitioner deafness for fair medical examination and to order to give the appropriate physically-challenged certificate based on the petition dated 22.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Today, when the matte...


Mar 21 2016

Subramanian Vs. The Regional Passport Officer

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-21-2016

(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 rectify the petitioner's Date of Birth as 18.05.1976 instead of 13.04.1971 in Passport No. F3318607 as per the petitioner's School Records and Birth Certificate and on the basis of the representation dated 15.10.2014 or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Writ Petition and to that effect he has also sent a letter dated 17.03.2016 to the Registry to post this writ petition for withdrawal. 2. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....


Mar 21 2016

Rama Devi Vs. The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-21-2016

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to complete the investigation in Crime No.653 of 2013 and file a final report.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the respondent police to complete the investigation in Crime No.653 of 2013 and file a final report. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the petitioner / defacto complainant is not co-operating with the enquiry. 3. The petitioner / defacto complainant is directed to co-operate with the enquiry and the respondent police shall expeditiously complete the investigation and file either a closure report or a final report, as the case may be, in accordance with law. With the above direction, this petition is closed....


Mar 21 2016

Narkees Banu Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-21-2016

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct to withdraw the case in Crime No.739 of 2015 dated 18.12.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and entrust the same to some other investigation agency by the competent officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct to withdraw the case in Crime No.739 of 2015 dated 18.12.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and entrust the same to some other investigation agency by the competent officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that this petitioner's daughter Riswana had eloped with one Pandeeswaran, in connection with which, on the complaint given by the petitioner, the respon...


Mar 21 2016

T. Subburaj Vs. The District Collector, Theni District and Others

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-21-2016

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2016 and consequently to take legal action against the Respondents 8 and 9 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in this Writ Petitionis for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2016 and consequently, to take legal action against the Respondents 8 and 9. 2. Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition in respect of the sale agreement whichis purely a contractual matter and therefore, he cannot appear and make a representation to the Registrar to stop the same. Therefore, the petitioner's recourse is only to file a petition ...


Mar 21 2016

The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd ...

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-21-2016

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009 dated 28.03.2011.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul, represented by its General Manager, has preferred the instant appeal, challenging the order, made in W.P(MD)No.8848 of 2009, dated 28.03.2011, by which, the Writ Court has held that the 1st respondent/V.Sivakumar, is entitled to pension from August 2003. The Writ Court has directed the appellant corporation to continue to pay pension, and further directed that arrears of pension from August 2003 be paid, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order made in the writ petition. Writ Court has further directed that pension be continuously paid to the 1st respondent from April 2011. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal, are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a Conductor in transport corporation on 06.08.1980. His services were regu...


Mar 21 2016

Adakkappan Poosari Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-21-2016

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.11.2015 within a time frame fixed by this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. On 14.03.2016, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, hence the matter was ordered to be posted on 18.03.2016 under the caption 'for dismissal'. 2. Even today when the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs....


Mar 21 2016

T. Jothiraj Vs. T. Ashokkumar

Court: Chennai Madurai

Decided on: Mar-21-2016

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Mahalir NeethiMandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.32 of 2016 in C.A.No.8 of 2015 dated 25.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filedto set aside the order passed by the learned Mahalir NeethiMandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.32 of 2016 in C.A.No.8 of 2015 dated 25.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is seen that this petitioner was convicted and sentenced in C.C.No.463 of 2013, challenging which, he filed an appeal in C.A.No.8 of 2015. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner/accused filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.32 of 2016 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling Thiagarajan, who was examined as P.W.2 in the Trial Court, on the ground that he has to be confronted with the Power of Attorney dated 10.04.2013, in which the said Thiagarajan has signed as witness. 4. It is also seen that Thiaga...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial