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.
The District Collector, Madurai District and Others Vs. N.E. Rajasudha ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.15151 of 2012, dated 19.12.2012.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Installation of a statue of V.O.Chidambaranar, a National Leader, in a patta land, belonging to a Uravinmurai Sangam, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, is opposed by the appellants, on the grounds that there would be a communal clash in the village, and hence not advisable, to erect a statue. G.O.No.248, Rural Development Department, dated 23.11.1998, is also invoked, to contend that permission from the Government is required. 2. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Srivilliputhoor Saiva Vellalar Sangam vs. The District Collector (W.P(MD)No.8935 of 2012, dated 29.08.2012), the Writ Court directed, unveiling of the statue of the National Leader V.O.Chidambaram(shortly V.O.C) at V.O.C Nagar, 15B, Periyasoorseri, Mettupatti Post, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. 3. Directions issued are assailed, on the grounds inter alia that the...
K. Govindaraj Vs. K. Kumar and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and executable order dated 12.09.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court), Kumbakonam.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 12.09.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court), Kumbakonam. 2. The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2004 and he claimed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs (subsequently by amendment, the same was enhanced to Rs.8 lakhs) for injury sustained by him in the road accident occurred on 19.08.2004. 3. According to the appellant, he was travelling in a Hero Honda Motorcycle as a pillion rider. One Mohan was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. In order to avoid the lorry coming in the opposite direction, the said Mohan suddenly turned his vehicle at high speed. Due to that, the appe...
Ganesan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Theni District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event, namely Adalpadal scheduled to be held on 05.05.2016 at night in connection with "Chithirai Festival" in Arulmigu Sri Samayapura Mariamman Thirukovil, at 17th Ward, Theni, Theni District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.04.2016.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event, namely Adalpadal scheduled to be held on 05.05.2016 at night in connection with "Chithirai Festival" in Arulmigu Sri Samayapura Mariamman Thirukovil, at 17th Ward, Theni, Theni District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.04.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the villagers jointly decided to perform the cultural event in connection with "Chithirai Festival" in Arulm...
V. Jeyabalan Vs. The Sub-Collector, Sivakasi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writs of Mandamus to direct the respondent to disburse the balance compensation together with the statutory benefits due to the petitioners based pursuant to the order in LAOP.Nos.173 of 1987, LAOP.Nos.169 of 1987, LAOP.Nos.177 of 1987 and LAOP.Nos.178 of 1987 dated 02.09.2002 on the file of the Subcourt, Srivilliputtur, within a time to be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The unfortunate petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions whose lands have been acquired by the respondent wayback in the year 1985 and reference was made in regard to the compensation and thereafter, an appeal was preferred and the matter was remanded and after remand, a final order was passed vide order dated 02.09.2002 fixing the quantum of compensation. Even though the quantum of compensation was fixed as early as 2002, till date, it has not been paid to them. Therefore, some of them have filed execution petitions. 2. ...
Manavalan and Another Vs. The 2nd Class Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)6778/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in the proceedings M.C.No.(A3) 26/2016 dated 08.03.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)6779/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in the proceedings M.C.No.(A3) 24/2016 dated 08.03.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. It is seen that these petitions have been filed, challenging the show cause notices issued under Section 107 Cr.P.C., asking the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent on 14.03.2016 for enquiry. 2. Since these are only show cause notices, this Court is not inclined to quash the entire proceedings of the 1st respondent. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent with an Advocate of their choice. With the above observation, these Criminal Original Pet...
P.K. Muthukumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the proposed accused person on the complaint made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent dated 30.1.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case against the proposed accused person on the complaint made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent dated 30.1.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 30.01.2016, it is seen that the opposite party has borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- from the petitioner during April, 2015 and that the opposite party had also given a cheque, which, on presentation, got dishonored. The transaction essentially appears to be money dispute and hence, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR. 4. Accordingly, this petition is closed with liberty...
Sethammal Vs. The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Wing ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent police to register a case on the report given to petitioner dated 05.03.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case on the report given to petitioner dated 05.03.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint dated 05.03.2016, the petitionerhas not even stated as to when the opposite party has fabricated false documents in respect of her property. Hence, no positive direction can be issued to the respondent police to register an FIR and the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed....
S. Mariappan Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: In W.P(MD)No.7631 of 2016: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 pay the petitioner Rs.5,53,086/- towards Gratuity and Rs.2,38,488/- towards leave salary together with 18% interest per annum within a time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the judgment of the Honourable The First Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.383 to 457 of 2015 dated 12.06.2015, that the benefits of the petitioners therein would be settled through twelve equal monthly installments, carrying interest of 6% p.a. The order of The Honourable The First Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.383 to 457 of 2015 dated 12.06.2015, which reads as follows: "The learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has obtained written instructio...
Nataraja Medical Agencies Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.3697 of 2016: 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 pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in TIN:33735540330/2010-11 dated 21.09.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to redo the assessment after providing adequate opportunity to us and ass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.3733 of 2016: 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 pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in TIN:33735540330/2011-12 dated 21.09.2015 and quash the same and onsequently direct the second respondent to redo the assessment after providing adequate opportunity to us and ass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. Prayer in W.P(MD)...
The Inspector General of Prisions, Tiruchirapalli District and Another ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.04.2014 in W.P(MD)No.6538 of 2009.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Writ appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.(MD)No. 6538 of 2009, by which, the Writ Court has quashed the order, dated 01.12.2008, passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Tiruchirappalli, 1st appellant herein, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, on the grounds that the writ petitioner had not attained majority, within a period of three years, from the date of death of the deceased employee. 2. Facts deduced from the supporting affidavit filed to the writ petition and the materials on record are, that the mother of the petitioner was working as a sweeper in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. On 30.03.1998, she died in harness. At that time, the writ petitioner was a minor, aged about 16 years. Hence, his grandmother has made an application, dated 30.09.2000, to the 1st appellant herein, seeking for employment assistance o...