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.
A.S. Jesuraj Vs. The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents 1 to 6 to take action against the Respondents 7 to 10 for unlawful development of layout with improper road in R.S.No.320/4A Vilacheri Village Madurai District and to make sure that the petitioner is having access to his land through a newly formed 23 ft road as per the circulars of the 1st Respondent and to stop all further development in R.S.No.320/4A Vilacheri Village Madurai Distirct 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 Respondents 1 to 6 to take action against the Respondents 7 to 10 for unlawful development of layout with improper road in R.S.No.320/4A Vilacheri Village Madurai District and to make sure that the petitioner is having access to his land through a newly formed 23 ft road as per the circulars of the 1st Respondent and to stop all further ...
Anand Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against the accused in Crime No.39 of 2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent by considering his representation dated 26.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against the accused in Crime No.39 of 2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent by considering his representation dated 26.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On the complaint given by this petitioner, a case in Crime No.39 of 2016 was registered by the respondent police on 26.01.2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 406, 418, 420, 442 and 506(ii) IPC and the investigation is in progress. 4. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations in the FIR in Crime No.39 of 2016, this Court is of the view that it will be in the interest...
State Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charita ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
Common Judgment: V. Ramasubramanian, J. History will find greatness in Felix Frankfurter as a justice, not because of the results he reached, but because of his attitude toward the process of decision. His guiding lights were detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means, no matter how noble the end and dedication to the Court as an institution. Because he was human, Justice Frankfurter did not always live up to his own ideal. But, he taught us the lesson that there is importance in the process (New York Times Editorial The Frankfurter Legacy, on September 2, 1962). 1. A very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Secretary, Political Department, Government of Meghalaya, Main Secretariat, Shillong Vs. High Court of Meghalaya through its Registrar, Shillong [Civil Appeal No. 2987 of 2016 dated 18.3.2016] began with the above quote. In the said decision, the Supreme court reminded all the Judges of this country about th...
Joseph Vs. Michael and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 27.08.2015, made in I.A.No.290 of 2015 in O.S.No.141 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai.) (Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 12.09.2015, made in I.A.No.328 of 2015 in A.S.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai.) Common Order: Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, with the consent of both parties, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.2425 of 2015 is the defendant in O.S.No.151 of 2010 and appellant in A.S.No.8 of 2015. The respondent is the plaintiff and he filed the suit in O.S.No.151 of 2010, for declaration and permanent injunction. The said Suit was decreed. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed A.S.No.8 of 2015 o...
M. Arulmani Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to forbear the 2nd and 3rd respondent from erecting the overhead water tank up to three feet nearer to the petitioner s house in Door No.6/281 in survey No.1126/19 in patta No.24 at Samimuthanpatti village Marambadi Village Vedasandur Taluk Dindigul district and consequently direct them to erect overhead water tank in an alternative place in Samimuthanpatti village Marambadi village Vedasndur Taluk Dindigul district and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Mandamus to forbear the 2nd and 3rd respondent from erecting the overhead water tank up to three feet nearer to the petitioner s house in Door No.6/281 in survey No.1126/19 in patta No.24 at Samimuthanpatti village Marambadi Village Vedasandur Taluk Dindigul district and consequently direct them to erect overhead water tank in an alternative place in Samimu...
Karthikeyan and Others Vs. Revathi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul to dispose of the case pending in D.V.O.P.NO.7 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dindgiul within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul to dispose of the case pending in D.V.O.P.NO.7 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dindigul. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Taking into consideration the volume of work of the Trial Court, this Court directs the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul to dispose of the case in D.V.O.P.NO.7 of 2015 pending on its file within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of....
A. Babu Packiaraj Vs. The Commissioner, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(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 herein not to evict the petitioner from Shop No.2, Kaveri Store, Corporation Building, Bharathiyar Salai, Opp to Railway Junction, Trichy, without due process of law 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 herein not to evict the petitioner from Shop No.2, Kaveri Store, Corporation Building, Bharathiyar Salai, Opp to Railway Junction, Trichy without due process of law. 2. According to the petitioner, his father is the original allottee. His father died and thereafter his son, namely, the petitioner herein, is in occupation and enjoyment of the said shop. According to him, the only dispute is that the portion occupied by him is 488.75 Sq.ft. but as per the Corporation it is mentioned as 720. Sq.ft. Further it is contended that a...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
B. Rajendran, J. 1. Today, these matters have come up for hearing under the caption "For Being Mentioned" at the instance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, stating that the collection amount has been wrongly furnished by him as Rs.14,00,000/- which meant for both 'Pay and Use Toilet' as well as 'Cloak Room', but the actual amount to be furnished is Rs.10,00,000/- only in respect of 'Cloak Room'. 2. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the amount should be only for the 'Cloak Room' and in such a case, only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has to be collected by the Corporation. Therefore, a typographical error made in the order as per the representation made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as Rs.14,00,000/- is wrong, as admitted by both parties. 3. Today, to show his bona fides, the petitioner paid Rs.10,00,000/- which is the actual amount payable even on demand by the Corporation through Demand Draft. Therefore, in the order dated 11.03.2016 in paragraphs 2 and 3, the amoun...
A. Valar Mukil Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to alter the sections in the FIR in Crime No.48 of 2016 in consonance with the petitioner's complaint dated 29.01.2016 within the period stipulated by this Honble Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 2nd respondent to alter the sections in the FIR in Crime No.48 of 2016 in consonance with the petitioner's complaint dated 29.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On the complaint lodged by this petitioner, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime no.48 of 2016 on 30.01.2016 for offences under Sections 292(A) and 509 IPC. According to the petitioner, the FIR requires to be amended. 4. Unlike code of Civil Procedure, where pleadings can be amended, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, FIR cannot be amended. However, during the course of investigation, if the commi...
RM. Narayanan and Another Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order vide Pa.Mu.P4/10550/2014 dated 10.07.2014 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.) The only point which has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry was fixed on 01.07.2014 and thereafter, it was adjourned to 22.07.2014, but the hearing was advanced on 08.07.2014 without notice to the petitioner, when the petitioners are admittedly living in Madras. Therefore, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on the date of hearing fixed by the official respondents and impugned order came to be passed. Thus, it is violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioners have not been heard of, before passing the impugned order by the first respondent. 2. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that ...