Chennai Madurai Court April 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.
P.S.P.K.J. Somu Vs. The District Registrar, Tuticorin and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct the elections for the office bearers of the 2nd respondent society after deleting Rule 7 B of its Bye-laws in so far as it requires a proposal from one of the office bearers of the society for applying to its membership and after finalizing the list of members by the authority appointed by this Honourable Court which after holding an enquiry into the list of member of the 2nd respondent society both existing members and members who have applied for its membership but to be enrolled had finalized such list and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit proper.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the writ petition has become infructuous, in view of the subsequent order passed by this Court in C.R.P(MD).1839 of 2012 dated 28.10.2013. 2. In view of the submissions made by the...
Rengaramanaunjam Vs. The Assistant Engineer (North), Operation and Mai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent vide his communication dated 25.09.2015 in Lr.No/V.Mu.Po/Vo/The. Kallu/Ko-viva/A.No.134/15 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to provide change over switch to the borewell of the petitioner comprised in S.F.No.114/7 of Silarpatty village at once and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent filed a counter affidavit. 2. It is seen from the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter that the Department has categorically stated that for change over switch to the borewell, unless the consent from the other co-owners is obtained, the first respondent cannot give it. 3. Therefore, the petitioner and the other legal heirs have to settle the dispute in the manner known to law. As far as ...
D. Katraja Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the first respondent from renewing the licence for collecting toll from the tourist vehicles coming to Thiruparankundram to the second respondent in pursuance of the order dated 08.09.2015 in Ma.Va.3/000145/15 passed by him and consequently directing the first respondent to conduct public auction after publishing the auction notification in a daily newspaper having wide circulation and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) B. Rajendran, J. 1. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is given to the petitioner. 2. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 31.03.2016. No costs. Consequently, the connecte...
C. Narayanan Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Sivagan ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to withdraw the Sessions Case in S.C No.139 of 2010 pending on the file of District Sessions Judge, Sivagangai and transfer the same to the District Sessions Judge, Tuticorin or any other competent court in other Districts to try the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to withdraw the Sessions Case in S.C No.139 of 2010 pending on the file of District Sessions Judge, Sivagangai and transfer the same to the District Sessions Judge, Tuticorin or any other competent court in other Districts to try the same. 2. On the complaint lodged by one Tamil Sangu, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.173 of 2003 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 342, 324, 307 and 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against one Dakshinamoorthy and others. It is the case of the defacto complainant that there was a previous enmity between Dakshinamoorthy group and Muthuramalingam group in connection ...
Saroja Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(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 in Nee.Mu.R.T.R No.3368/2009 dated 25.03.2010 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Nee.Mu.R.T.R No.3368/2009 dated 25.03.2010 passed by the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal. 2.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing it is found that as against the grant of patta, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same is still pending. In view of the same, it would suffice to direct the first respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from ...
K. Saravanakumar Vs. State Represented by, The Sub-Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to expedite the investigation in Crime No.20 of 2016 and file final report within a time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to expedite the investigation in Crime No.20 of 2016 and file final report. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It is seen that the petitioner lost his vehicle on 21.11.2015 and he had given a complaint on 24.11.2015, for which, CSR No.534 of 2015 was given by the respondent police and thereafter, an FIR in Crime No.20 of 2016 was registered by the respondent police on 04.01.2016 under Section 379 IPC against unknown accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the Investigating Officer gives a non-traceable certificate, so that the petitioner will work out his remedy before the ...
Rajalakshmi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Karur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would, on instructions from the respondent police, submit that neither a case nor a petition enquiry is pending against this petitioner on the file of the respondent police. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
R.K. Jeyachitra Vs. The University Grants Commission, Rep. by its Join ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents Nos.2 - 4 to constitute a committee to enquire about the sexual harassment by the respondents Nos.5 and 6 against the petitioner and take necessary criminal and departmental action against them as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Visaka and Others -Vs- Rajasthan reported in AIR 1997 SC 3011 and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed....
Durai Arasan Vs. Jeyasingh
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 115 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.04.2015, made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi.) This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.04.2015, made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi. 2. The petitioner is the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2012, on the file of the Rent Control Tribunal/Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi, for eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default. After contesting, the said RCOP was allowed on 09.12.2013, granting two months time for the respondent to vacate the petition property. Against the said order of eviction, the respondent filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi. In R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2012, the respondent also filed I.A.No.8 of 2014 for injunction, r...
Ramadoss Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to give suitable police protection to survey the petitioner's land situated in S.Nos.50/3, 50/7, 50/8, 51/4, 51/8, 51/7, 58/1 and 59/2A in Manjapattinm Village, Paramakudi Taluk to the petitioner's life and limb by considering his representation dated 29.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to give suitable police protection to survey the petitioner's land situated in S.Nos.50/3, 50/7, 50/8, 51/4, 51/8, 51/7, 58/1 and 59/2A in Manjapattinm Village, Paramakudi Taluk to the petitioner's life and limb by considering his representation dated 29.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that on the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry in CSR No.37 of 2016 was conducted and the same was closed on 13.03.2016 with a direction to the par...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »