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.K.V. Panneer Vs. The Tahsildar, R.S. Mangalam, Ramanathapuram Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2013 with regard to conduct the enquiry and to cancel the patta for the property in Survey No.84/1A2A, R.S.Mangalam Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2013 with regard to conduct the enquiry and to cancel the patta for the property in Survey No.84/1A2A, R.S.Mangalam Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has entered into a registered mortgage dated 21.06.2000, for an amount of Rs.50,000/- in respect of the property situated in Survey No.84/...
I. Pushparani Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagerc ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(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 to issue ration card in the name of the petitioner and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to issue ration card in the name of the petitioner. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has married one Christy Ugin on 12.09.2003, and got two children. He further submits that the second respondent issued a family card containing the name of the petitioner's husband, herself and three children in the year 2005. The further case of the petitioner is that, due to harassment by her husband, she was compelled to live separately with effect from 05.05.2011, and that she had also obtained an order for maintenance in M.C.No.25 of 2012, against her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Crimi...
Mary Baby Vs. Maria Lawrence
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 (1) r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.493 of 2010 in M.C.No.5 of 1989 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and set aside the order dated 22.01.2011.) 1. In this revision, an order under Section 127(3) Cr.P.C. has been challenged. 2. Initially, the revision petitioner sought for maintenance for herself and for her daughter, in M.C.No.5 of 1989, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District, the learned Judicial Magistrate granted them each Rs.350/- p.m., Rs.150/- p.m. respectively. Subsequently, since the daughter became major, she did not enforce the maintenance order in her favour as it became unenforceable. 3. Revision petitioner sought for enhancement of her maintenance. On 18.03.2006, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, enhanced the maintenance from Rs.350/- to Rs.500/- per month. 4. The respondent filed I.D.O.P.No.54 of 2006...
Alfred Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.4598 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam, Thoothukudi District and set aside the order dated 06.05.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 06.05.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.4598 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam, Thoothukudi District, by which the complaint of Arulmathi Yesuvadial / 2nd respondent herein was ordered to be forwarded to the Station House Officer concerned (under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) to register a case, investigate the same and a report to be filed on or before 08.06.2016. 2. Based on the orders, a case was registered in Crime No.123 of 2016 under Sections 147, 294(b), 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the Police to register a case, the present petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8744 of 2016 has been fi...
Sister. Piusha, Incharge, Vimala Balabhavan for Girls, Kanyakumari Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take back the custody of Minor Devika, aged about 14 years, who is the inmates of Vimala Bala Bhavan for Girls, Marthandam Post, Kanyakumari District to any other Government Home within the time stipulated by this Honble Court.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take back the custody of Minor Devika, aged about 14 years, who is the inmates of Vimala Bala Bhavan for Girls, Marthandam Post, Kanyakumari District to any other Government Home. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced a letter bearing Na.Ka.No.679/A1/2016 dated 21.06.2016 of the 4th respondent addressed to him, wherein it has been stated that the custody of Minor Devika, has been handed over to the Government Children's Home, Parakkinkal, Nagercoil in the p...
A. Durai Vs. The Commissioner, Karur District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(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 execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Petitioner, with regard to MIG Plot No.18 in Arugampalayam Housing Scheme, within the limits of the respondent Municipality on the basis of the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.5.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he was allotted MIG Plot No.18 with the measurement of 60 x 30 sq.ft in Arugampalayam of Karur Municipality in the lot system conducted by the Respondent. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.37,600/-.The Petitioner had paid the total sale consideration of Rs.57,863/- together with other incidental charges and interest. In-spite of the same, the Respondent had not chosen to execute the registered sale deed. 4. It comes to be known that the Petitio...
T. Thangaraj Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order to withdraw the case in S.T.C.No.260 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur and transfer the same to Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Erode.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to transfer the case in S.T.C.No.260 of 2012 pending on the file of the Fast Track Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Erode. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents. Brief Facts: 3. The complainant/petitioner initiated proceedings under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for the default committed by the 2nd respondent in not repaying the amount, namely, Rs.15,00,000/-; that the cheque issued by the 2nd respondent, when presented, got returned with an endorsement cheque stopped ; that the petitioner also received a reply...
S. Krishnasamy Vs. The Block Development Officer, Thoothukudi District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from take over the land in Survey No.265-2A of Vilathikulam Village Vilathikulam Taluk Thoothukudi Disrtict except under due process of law.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he purchased the property in Sy.No.265-2A, measuring an extent of 5018 sq.ft, Vilathikulam Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. After purchasing the property, he laid hay in the said property and also cows-shed in the said property. It appears that adjacent to the said land, there is a government poromboke in Sy.No.263/3. 4. The stand of the petitioner is that the first Respondent/Block Development Officer, Vilathikulam Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District, constructed a building for E-Seva Centre for Vilathikulam Taluk. In this connection, it is represented on b...
E. Sahul Hameed Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
(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 not to insist the petitioner to withdraw the petition in M.L.O.P.No.1 of 2014 pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai and consequently directing the second respondent not to insist the petitioner and his wife to execute the sale deed in favour of the said Babu and to pass any further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
P. Arumugam Vs. Apurva Varma, I.A.S., State of Tamil Nadu, represented ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 brings it to the notice of this Court that the Government had sanctioned a sum of Rs.3,15,700/- to the Petitioner/P.Arumugam, as recommended by the Committee, as compensation. Also, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 hands-over a cheque for Rs.3,15,700/- drawn in favour of the Petitioner, dated 16.06.2016 to the Petitioner's Learned Counsel Mr.V.Panneerselvam and the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has received the same in Open Court. 3. In view of the above, the Contempt Petition is closed, for the present, granting liberty to the Petitioner to work out his remedy against the concerned persons/authorities, in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law....
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »