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. Josin Vs. The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram District 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 Respondents 1 to 3 to survey and fix the boundary of the Petitioner's land in S.No.162/22, Mukilthagam Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 10.6.2016 within the time limit 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 he had remitted a sum of Rs.80/- towards fee for measurement of land in S.No.162/22, Mukilthagam Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, by the Surveyor and till date his representation dated 10.6.2016 given in this regard, has not seen the light of the day. 4. Considering the fact that the representation of the Petitioner, dated 10.6.2016 addressed to the respondents is pending...
P. Sureshkumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, to dispose of the C.C.No.69/2014 pending on his file within the time stipulated by this Court.) This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, to dispose of the C.C.No.69/2014 pending on his file within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent. 3. From a perusal of the 'B' Diary extract, it appears that summons have already been directed to be issued to L.Ws.1 to 3. However, the same entry is repeated from 18.06.2014 to 13.04.2016. For nearly two years, without any progress, the case is pending. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused and that right should not be deprived to the accused. From the...
N. Muthukrishnan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi Distric ...
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 respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 16.6.2016 for rectifying the mistakes in the official records I.e., UDR A Registry in S.No.156/1B2 in Revenue Office, Thoothukudi,Thoothukudi District.) 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 representation dated 16.6.2016 addressed to the Second Respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Thoothukudi District seeking change of patta in his name has not been considered by the Second Respondent till date. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's representation, dated 16.6.2016 is pending on the file of the Second Respondent/The Revenue Di...
Thonthiappan Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District and Ano ...
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 representation dated 28.3.2016 within the time stipulated by this Court, for issuance of patta in the name of 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 1 and 2. 3. According to the Petitioner, his representation, dated 28.3.2016 addressed to the Second Respondent/The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District has not met with any positive response till date. Therefore, as an aggrieved person, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. A perusal of the contents of the representation of the Petitioner, dated 28.3.2016 shows that the Petitioner has sought for issuance of patta in his name from the name of his Father, who has been given patta in the year 1994....
Muruganantham Vs. P. Nagarajan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 31.3.2015 made in Cont.P(MD)No.466 of 2015 in W.P(MD)No.3531 of 2015 for committing contempt of Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that balance payment by virtue of the earlier order, dated 26.4.2016 was complied with by the Respondent. 3. Recording the same, the Contempt Petition stands closed. Consequently, connected Sub-Application is closed....
Kovai Medical Center and Hospitals Limted, represented by its Managing ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notices and proceedings of the second respondent dated 5.4.2016 and 5.5.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the third respondent to issue building plan approval for S.F.No.371, 389, Ariyur Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the Petitioner Mr.K.Balasubramani submitted a letter, dated 21.6.2016 to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
V. Karthikeyan Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District 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 third respondent to issue the Legal Heir Certificate to the Petitioner, on the basis of the Petitioner's representation petition No.1836 dated 28.12.2015, 22.2.2106 letter sent by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.977/2016/Aa3, dated 29.03.2016 to the third respondent.) 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 necessary orders may be passed by this Court in directing the Third Respondent to issue the Legal Heir Certificate to him, on the basis of the Petitioner's representation petition No.1836 dated 28.12.2015, 22.2.2106 and letter sent by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.977/2016/Aa3, dated 29.03.2016 to the third respondent. 4. This Court, at this stage, has perused the contents of the...
B. Babu Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent No.2 not to interfere in the civil dispute by way of vacating the petitioner's shops in Shop Nos.110 and 111 situated at Meenakshi Bazaar, Madurai District without adapting due process of law.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent No.2 not to interfere in the civil dispute by insisting upon the petitioner to vacate Shop Nos.110 and 111 situated at Meenakshi Bazaar, Madurai District. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader that there are 11 cases pending against the petitioner's nephew and that this petitioner and his nephew are running the shops jointly. It is stated that as on date, nobody has preferred any complaint agains...
A. Mary Jenifer Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Trichy and Another
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 Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the TATA Ace vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67 AP-3440 seized by the second respondent on 12.02.2016 to the petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. According to the petitioner, she being the owner of TATA Ace vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67 AP-3440 was seized by the second respondent on 12.02.2016 on the allegation that the vehicle was used to transport 19 bags of rice (each containing 50 kgs.). It appears that after seizure of the vehicle, a case was registered by the second respondent/Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department, Trichy in Crime No.18 of 2016 in respect of an offence under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w. 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ...
T.S.M. Thummuni(died) and Others Vs. Doulat Nisha and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
1. The plaintiffs/appellants who lost the legal battle in both the Courts, have come forward with the Second Appeal, challenging the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S. No. 18 of 1997, dated 27.07.1999 by the Additional District Court Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram, by confirming the Decree and Judgment made in O.S. No. 338 of 1986, dated 30.09.1996 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 3. The plaintiffs/appellants have filed a suit in O.S. No. 338 of 1986 for injunction restraining the defendants/respondents 1 to 3 not to remove, demolish or make a new construction and alteration in the suit properties by stating that the suit properties originally owned by their father and their predecessors on title and they have inherited the properties and made a construction. In the suit properties, Door No. 11 stands in the na...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »