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.
L. Andi Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society District Co-Op ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Thava no.1/2015 (Na.Ka.No.1140/2015 Saba) dated 05.06.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from removing the present office bearers who were elected as Directors of Q-1193 A.Punavasal Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society on 04.03.2013 and holding office till date.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of the second respondent dated 05.06.2015 and consequently forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from removing the present office bearers who are elected as Directors of Q-1193 A.Punavasal Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short 'the Society) and holding office. 2. The short facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:- 2.1. According to the petitioner, an election for the said Society was declared on 04.03....
K. Kanagaraj Vs. The District Collector -cum- Arbitrator (Land Acquisi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(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 respondent to dispose of the representation dated 13.04.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court and thereby refer the dispute to the competent court in accordance with Section 3-H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to dispose of the representation dated 13.04.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court and thereby, refer the dispute to the competent Court in accordance with Section 3-H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks for enhancement of compensation under the law. However, he ought to have filed an application against the grant of compensation before the competent Court. Instead of doing so, according to him, by mistake, h...
R. Indra Gandhi Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to enter the petitioner's name as owner in the revenue records in respect of the lands in Survey No.139/3 and 139/4 measuring 1.33.5 hecters and 0.57.0 hecters respectively of Kurippankulam village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District, by considering the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to enter the petitioner's name as owner in the revenue records in respect of the lands in Survey No.139/3 and 139/4 measuring 1.33.5 hecters and 0.57.0 hecters respectively of Kurippankulam village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District, by considering the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, a counter has been filed by the first respondent. In the counter ...
M. Thamilselvi Vs. The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Thanjav ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(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 respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2016 and to sanction educational loan for the petitioner for the academic years from 2015 to 2018 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petitionis for a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2016 and to sanction educational loan for the petitioner for the academic years from 2015 to 2018. 2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's representation may be considered on condition that since the earlier loan has already been pending for payment, if the petitioner agrees to make payment on reschedule of loan amount. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the peti...
A. Alamelu Mangai Vs. A. Krishnaveni
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the ex-order and fair order dated 19.02.2016, made in I.A.No.53 of 2016 in O.S.No.11of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.) 1. This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the ex-order and fair order dated 19.02.2016, made in I.A.No.53 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the Suit. The respondent filed the Suit in O.S.No.11 of 2012, for recovery of possession. The respondent filed an application in I.A.No.53 of 2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2012, for permission to file additional documents. According to the respondent, the documents were not available with him at the time of filing of the suit and now only he got the documents and filed. The petitioner filed counter affidavit and objected the same. According to the petitioner, t...
M/s. SICGILSOL Gases Private Limited., (Formerly Known as Seva Gases P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(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 in TIN 33773464508/2013-14 dated 15.05.2015 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording opportunity of being heard as contemplated under Section 27(2) of the TNVAT Act, to the petitioner by this Court as this Court may deem fit and proper. 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 in TIN 33773464508/2013-14 dated Nil.02.2016 signed on 01.03.2016 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against law and pass appropriate order passed by this Court as this Court may deem fit and proper.) Common Order: After some elaborate arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after filing of wr...
S. Mahubi and Others Vs. Hajirabibi (died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
(Prayer in both CRPs: This Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 83 Clause 9 of TN Wakf Act, 1995 to set aside the order dated 19.04.2007 made in W.O.P.No.11 of 2000 and W.O.P.No.1 of 2002 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Madurai.) 1. This Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the common order dated 19.04.2007 made in W.O.P.No.11 of 2000 and W.O.P.No.1 of 2002 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Madurai. 2. The revision petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions are respondents 1 and 2 in W.O.P.No.11 of 2000 and petitioners in WOP.No.1 of 2002. The respondents 1 and 2 filed WOP.No.11 of 2000 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge (Wakf Tribunal), Madurai, for injunction against the petitioners and others from interfering with the Administration of Dhargah. The petitioners and others filed W.O.P.No.1 of 2002 for declaration that they are legal heirs of the one Syed Yakub Shahib. Originally, both the original WOPs were filed before Civil Court as O...
Mathivanan @ Sathish Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-24-2016
A. Selvam, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence dated 10.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.44 of 2012 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam. 2. The epitome of the case of the prosecution is that the accused 2 and 3 namely Chandran and Thilakavathi are the parents of the first accused viz., Mathivanan. The first accused has married the deceased by name Mariselvam prior to four years from the date of occurrence. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have given Rs.15,000/-, gold jewels and other household articles. After marriage, the deceased and accused have lived in a joint family. The first accused has run an auto electrical shop. For the purpose of extending his business, he directed the deceased to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. The parents of the deceased have refused to concede the demand put forth on the side of the first accused and due to that all the accused have joined toge...
A. Veeraiah Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-24-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order bearing No.Ni.Moo.No.3986/2011/N dated 07.02.2012 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. Today, when the matter was called, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that nothing survives in this writ petition and hence the writ petition is closed. 2. Recording the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner this writ petition is closed without prejudice rights of the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer.No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed....
Singaram Vs. C.V. Sankar, IAS, The Secretary, Chennai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-24-2016
(PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of the Contempt of Courts Act, to initiate contempt proceedings against the the respondent and punish him for the wilfull disobedience of the order of this Court dated 16.03.2015 in W.P(MD)No.20458 of 2014.) B. Rajendran, J. 1. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the order passed in the writ petition has been complied with by issuing letter dated 22.03.2016 by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai-9. He has also produced a xerox copy of the order. A copy of the order is also handed over to the petitioner's counsel. 2. Recording the above said statement, this contempt petition is closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »