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.
Angammal Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District and Ot ...
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 no to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioner's family properties in S.Nos.755/1, 78B/1A1, 605/1, 607, 608, 610, 611 and 612/2 at Keelpidagai Appan Koil Village, Srivaigundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent no to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioner's family properties in S.Nos.755/1, 78B/1A1, 605/1, 607, 608, 610, 611 and 612/2 at Keelpidagai Appan Koil Village, Srivaigundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record. 3. It is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, on the complaint given by the third respondent against t...
S. Thirugnana Sambandam Vs. The ADGP Railways, Chennai 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 respondents to file a final report in Crime No.30 of 2014 in Tuticorin Railway Police Station within the time limit stipulated by this Honoruable Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to file a final report in Crime No.30 of 2014 in Tuticorin Railway Police Station within the time limit stipulated by this Honoruable Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. Today, the respondent police have filed a status report, wherein in Paragraph Nos.6 to 10, it is stated as follows: 6. I humbly submit that the then Inspector of Police enquired the Coolies, Porters, Auto Drivers who were in the Sathur, Kovilpatti Railway Stations and also obtained the old criminals list from the Railway Crime Record Bureau and enquired about them. 7. I humbly submit that in this juncture, the Inspector of Po...
B. Mohammed Ismail Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur to expedite the case pending before the same in Cr.M.P.No.212 of 2015 in Cr.No.308 of 2014 U/s. 451 of Cr.P.C.(Petition for Return of Property).) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur to expedite the case pending before the same in Cr.M.P.No.212 of 2015 in Cr.No.308 of 2014 U/s. 451 of Cr.P.C.(Petition for Return of Property). 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the trial in C.C.No.299 of 2015 has begun and several witnesses have been examined. 3. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. The question of disbursal of sum of Rs.45,000/- can be decided by the Trial Court only at the culmination of the trial under Section 452 Cr.P.C. With the above observation, this petition is closed....
N. Govindaraj Vs. The Executive Officer, Pudukottai District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.03.2016 as per G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 03.07.2007.) 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the filing of this Writ Petition, by a letter dated 17.03.2016, the President of Alangudi Town Panchayat, Alangudi, Pudukottai District, has sent a communication to the respondent stating that in view of bar to conduct a fresh auction, due to the election, the petitioner could be allowed to continue as an existing licensee, only for the interregnum period alone, that is to say, till the next auction is being conducted. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to take an appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible due to the reason that the period of lease of the petitioner is fast coming to an end. No costs....
Alaska Export USA Inc. Vs. Alaska Exports, rep. by its Managing Partne ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 01.04.2013 made in I.A.No.65 of 2011 in O.S.No.37 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Karur.) 1. This regular appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of a Judgment and decree passed by the District Court, Karur allowing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and consequently rejecting the plaint. 2. We have heard Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.V.Ramanujun, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. On 1.10.2001, an agreement was entered into between (1) Alaska Export, a Partnership Firm, having its office at Karur, who is the first respondent herein, represented by its partners who are the respondents 2 and 3 herein and (2) M/s. Alaska Export, USA Inc., which is the appellant herein. 4. On the ground that the respondents herein failed to fulfill their obligation under ...
State Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Vs. Ras ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: APPEALS under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 26.11.2015 made in W.P.(MD)No.20559 of 2015.) 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 w...
Muralidharan and Another Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Dis ...
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 police to complete the investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.18 of 2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent within a period that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 2nd respondent police to complete the investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.18 of 2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent. 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 2nd respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No.18 of 2016 and to file a final report before the concerned jurisdictional Court as expeditiousl...
M/s. Karur District, Vengamedu Vs. Directorate of Town and Country Pla ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to remove the unauthorized developments found in the areas reserved for public purpose measuring Ac.12.97 cents comprised in S.F.Nos.135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 146, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155 and 160 in Vengamedu Region, Inam Karur Town, Karur District, being the areas as shown in the sanctioned layout (sanction No.LP/R(CN)No.9/1983 dated 13.1.1983) of the first respondent in accordance with law and take over possession thereof so as to ensure the earmarked usage.) 1. A registered association of residents of a colony, has come up with the above writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the unauthorized developments that have come up in the areas earmarked for public purposes in the layout that allegedly sanctioned way back in the year 1983. 2. We have heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the pet...
Pandidurai Vs. Alagesan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 01.09.2015, made in I.A.No.225 of 2014 in O.S.No.29 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanoor.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.09.2015, made in I.A.No.225 of 2014 in O.S.No.29 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanoor. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the Suit. The petitioner filed the Suit in O.S.No.29 of 2010 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondent is contesting the suit and filed his written statement stating that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.225 of 2014 for appointment of an Advocate Commis...
P. Vairamuthu Vs. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
(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 implement the order of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.Thi 5/3369/2013 dated 22-05-2015 within a time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petitionis for a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to implement the order of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.Thi 5/3369/2013 dated 22.05.2015. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on instructions submitted that the petitioner as per the proceedings of the first respondent, he is entitled to occupy the shop and as on date there is no lock and key. Therefore, it is always liberty to occupy the shop as per the allotment. 3. Recording the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this writ petition is closed. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »