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.
Pandian @ Ricksaw Pandi and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Thooth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to transfer the case in P.R.C.No.20 of 15 in Crime No.26 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District to some other competent Court at Madurai District.) 1. This petition has been filed to transfer the case in P.R.C.No.20 of 15 in Crime No.26 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District to some other competent Court at Madurai District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. The respondent police have filed a counter, wherein in Paragraph Nos.2 to 4, it is stated as follows: 2. I respectfully submitted that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Gurumoorthy a case was registered in Crime No.26 of 2011 for the alleged offence u/s. 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC dated 31.03.2011. The brief fact of the case is that there was ...
Durga Prasath Vs. Vasantha @ Vasanthammal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.94 of 2014 in O.S.No.212 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 30.11.2015 passed in I.A.No.94 of 2014 in O.S.No.212 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru. 2. The revision petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. 3. The respondent /plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.212 of 2013 for declaration to declare that there is a pathway which is existing in the East end of the defendant's property upto the plaintiff's cultivating lands and consequential injunction. The petitioner filed I.A.No.94 of 2014 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.79 of 2010 for permanent injunction in respect of the very same property. At t...
S. Rajeswari Vs. The Collector, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from laying the road measuring 12 feet on the western side comprised in Survey No.63/4 Achchangulam Village, measuring 96 cents.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from laying the road measuring 12 feet on the western side comprised in Survey No.63/4 Achchangulam Village, measuring 96 cents. 2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate produced a proceedings dated 24.03.2016 of the Tahsildar, Vembakottai, wherein it is stated that the Government has not initiated any work to lay road on both the sites. The dispute is purely private in nature, between the petitioner and the third respondent. 3. Recording the above statements, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Dr.G.M. Kamalakumar Vs. The Secretary to Government, Industries Depart ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(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 recovey the land in Survey No.1149/1 and 1150/1 measuring about 9 Acres in Meelavittan Village, Thoothukudi District to the legal heirs of Raju V.Ganesan in consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2013 and pass further orders as this may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to recovey the land in Survey No.1149/1 and 1150/1 measuring about 9 Acres in Meelavittan Village, Thoothukudi District to the legal heirs of Raju V.Ganesan in consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2013. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the lands were acquired way-back in the year 1986 and his father died in the year 1971. The Government by G.O.No.1242, Industries Department dated 07.09.1981, segregated the land...
Anandha Raj Vs. The Superintendent of Police Pudukottai District and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to withdraw and transfer the case in Crime No.34 of 2015 from the file of the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent and may direct the 3rd respondent to file final report.) 1. This petition has been filed to withdraw and transfer the case in Crime No.34 of 2015 from the file of the 2nd respondent to the file of the 3rd respondent and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to file final report. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the investigation in Crime No.34 of 2015 has been completed and the case has been closed as mistake of fact and a closure report has also been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur on 10.04.2015. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in the ...
S. Manthiram Vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, SPIC Nagar, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(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 recokon the pending education loan availed for the petitioner's son in Account No.30244348231 based on his representations dated 06.03.2015, 26.12.2014 and 21.08.2015 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to recokon the pending education loan availed for the petitioner's son in Account No.30244348231 based on his representations dated 06.03.2015, 26.12.2014 and 21.08.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. After some elaborate arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the bank gives details of accounts he is prepared to settle the accounts. 4. The ...
O. Gopal Vs. The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned resolution of the fifth respondent vide Resolution No.441 dated 15.02.2016 quash the same and consequently direct the 7th respondent herein to conduct a detailed investigation on the public auction conducted by the respondents 3 to 6 herein for leasing out of shops of Batlagundu Town Panchayat and to submit a report thereon for initiation of action in accordance with law and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.55/2015/A3 dated 15.12.2015 and the re-auction notification issued by the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.55/2015/A3 dated 06.01...
Arockiaraj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to send the copy of the FIR in Crime No.396 of 2015 to the Joint Director Health and Family Welfare, Theni at Periyakulam.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to send the copy of the FIR in Crime No.396 of 2015 to the Joint Director Health and Family Welfare, Theni at Periyakulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioenr and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. The defacto complainant / petitioner is before this Court. It is the case of the defacto complainant that on the complaint given by him, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.396 of 2015 against one Jesudoss and four others for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 324 and 506(i) IPC and the investigation is pending. It is also stated that Jesudoss was arrested by Police and was in custody from 20.10.2015 to 28.10.2015. 4. While so, the defact...
A. Shiekh Mohideen Vs. The Commissioner, Kodaikkanal Municipality, Din ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice made in Na.Ka.No.4413/2014/A4 dated 15.03.2016 as well as the notice made in Na.Ka.No.4413/2014/A3 dated 17.3.2016 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to revise the lease amount in respect of collection of parking fee for Four wheelers at Bruton compound Kodaikkanal Dindigul District within the time stipulated by this Court to enable the petitioner to pay the same towards 2016-2017 lease period.) 1. The prayer in this Writ Petition as such is not maintainable at this stage for the simple reason that though the petitioner is a successful bidder, he is in arrears of huge amount right from the very beginning of awarding the contract to him. According to the respondent, the arrears amount is worked out to Rs.4,77,520/- as on date and therefore, he is not enti...
Sebastain Thevar and Others Vs. Antonysamy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.10.2014 passed in I.A.No.432 of 2014 in O.S.No.515 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.10.2014, passed in I.A.No.432 of 2014 in O.S.No.515 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1, 3 and 4. The respondents are plaintiffs. 3. The respondents / plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.515 of 2008, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi, Thirunelveli District for partition. The petitioners entered appearance and filed written statement. The suit was posted for trial on 07.12.2013. The petitioners did not appear on that day. Therefore, they were set ex parte and the matter was posted to 11.12.2013 and on 13.12.2013 ex parte order was passed. On 18.12.2013, exparte p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »