Chennai Madurai Court June 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. Shri Santhaji Vs. A. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petitions is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the petition in Cr.M.P.No.4498 of 2015 in C.C.No.2 of 2009, dated 18.03.2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur and to set aside the same by allowing this revision.) 1. The accused in C.C.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur having aggrieved by the dismissal of his recall petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Cr.M.P.No.4498 of 2015 has directed this revision. 2. With regard to certain occurrence took place on 05.02.2008, in the Court Hall of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, PW1, an Advocate filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner, alleging commission of an offence under Section 500 IPC. He has engaged PW2, an Advocate of Srivilliputhur Bar to prosecute the revision p...
Y. Arockiasamy Vs. The Post Mater General, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the amount deposited by the Petitioner as sought through his representation along with annexure dated 28.4.2016 to the Petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 3. It is the stand of the Petitioner that he had opened Savings Bank Account in S.B.A/c.Nos.283712 and 287276 in the Sub-Post Office, Sirunaickenpatti. His respective deposits in the above said accounts are Rs.70,147 and Rs.30,050/- respectively. Further, in the year 2015, the Sub-Post Master of Sirunaickenpatti Sub-Post Office namely, Sivaperumal had misappropriated the depositors amount which comes around Rs.9 lakhs approximately and nearly 83 accounts were misappropriated by the aforesaid individual. 4. The real grievance of the Petiti...
Vasanthamalar Vs. The District Registrar, Thanjavur District and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2. 3. According to the Petitioner, he submitted documents with a statement before the First Respondent/The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, K.M.S.Building, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District on 28.2.2016. It appears that the matter is still pending. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner had entered appearance in connection with the enquiry before the First Respondent on 28.2.2016 and submitted necessary documents in the subject-matter in issue. Also, it is represented on behalf of the petitioner that notice was issued to the two persons concerned with this issue and the matter is pending at this stage. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 4. In view of the fact that the relief sought for ...
Punitha Michael Kal Udaipor Sangam, Rep. by its President, G. Alexande ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Tender Notification in Na.Ka.No.03/Pu.Ma.Su/2016 dated 08.01.2016 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction directing the Respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal petition preferred by the petitioner dated 21.01.2016 within the time period stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the petitioner/Society, it was formed for the welfare of labourers engaged in stone quarrying works and for their social upliftment. It was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act from the year 2016. 3. The stand of the petitioner is that the second respondent had called for the tender for stone quarrying in the Government poromboke lands in Kanyakumari District on 22.11.2015 in accordance with Section 8(10-A(a)) of the Tamil Nadu ...
Madurai Central Market Vegetable and Perishable Commodities Merchant C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Ka.No.117/Ko.4/2016 dated 14.06.2016 and quash the same.) Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This writ petition is instituted calling in question the correctness of the proceedings dated 14th June 2016, passed by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Irrigation Section -II, Periyar Vaigai Basin Sub Division No.I, Madurai. By virtue of the proceedings, the petitioner has been directed to remove the encroachment within seven days, failing which, action would be taken against the petitioner and the encroachment would be removed at the cost of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Prasannavinoth, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. It is urged before us that there w...
G. Lazer Nadar Vs. The District Collector, Tuticorin and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue a patta pass book in favour of the Petitioner to his property bearing S.No.110/20 situated at Maravanmadam Village, Tuticorin District measuring an extent of 4 cents on the basis of his representation, dated 28.4.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. To avoid an avoidable delay, notice to the Third Respondent is dispensed with. 3. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2. 4. According to the Petitioner, he is a bonafide purchaser of the property situated in S.No.110/20 situated at Maravanmadam Village, Tuticorin District measuring an extent of 4 cents. The case of the Petitioner is that he is not in possession of the patta for the property in question, till this day. Therefore, he had applied to the Respondents 1 and 2 through r...
The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development, Culture and Religious, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order of Writ Court dated 30.10.2009 in W.P.(MD)No.7048 of 2006.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 30 October, 2009, in W.P.(MD)No.7048 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge quashed the punishment imposed on the respondent primarily on the ground that the Executive Officer is only an executing authority bound to implement the orders passed by the Fit Person. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The respondent functioned as the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar and Badrakaliamman Thirukoil, Madapuram, Manamadurai Taluk, in the district of Sivagangai. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for dereliction of duty and loss of revenue to the temple. There were altogether four charges. Since the explanation submitted by the respondent was found to be un...
Palanivel Vs. State through The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Cases, Sivagangai in Cr.M.P.No.138 of 2016 dated 13.05.2016 in C.C.No.1 of 2014.) 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his Cr.M.P.No.138 of 2016 filed under 311 Cr.P.C. on the file of learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Sivagangai, A3 has directed this revision. 2. A3 a public servant along with other accused is being prosecuted before the said Special Judge for certain alleged commission of criminal misconduct. Examination of prosecution witnesses is going on. He filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.8 and 18. 3. The learned Magistrate quoting VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [AIR 2015 SC 1206], dismissed the petition. 4. A decision should be applied when the facts of the case warrants such application. Application of case law depends on facts and circumstances of each case. 5. No...
Silambarasan and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Din ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.451 of 2016 in C.C.No.229 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, Palani dated 24.03.2016.) 1. The application filed to recall the witnesses for cross examination has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani. Challenging the same, this petition has been filed before this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.229 of 2014, it appears that P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on 05.03.2015 and they were not cross examined and P.Ws.4 to 6 have been examined on 07.05.2015 and they have not been cross examined. The implication of filing the application for recalling the witnesses for cross examination has been very beautifully highlighted by the learned Judicial Magistrate and accordingly, the applicat...
S. Vijayan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representations dated 30.1.2016 and 15.2.2016 requesting to cancel the fraudulent sale deed executed by Nallathambi Kone in favour of Subbiah registered in Doc.No.76/1976, dated 23.01.1976 based on Section 68(2) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act and Circular No.67, dated 3.11.2011 issued by the First Respondent within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his representations, dated 30.1.2016 and 15.2.2016 seeking to cancel the fraudulent sale deed executed by Nallathambi Kone in favour of Subbiah registered in Doc.No.76/1976, dated 23.01.1976 based on Section 68(2) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act and Circul...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »