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.
Hajara Vs. The Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi and Oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order in P.D.No.01-N.S.A./2016, dated 27.01.2016 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's husband namely Altaf, S/o.Bagrudheen, aged 31 years now confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of Thiru.Altaf, who is presently detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, pursuant to the order passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, on 27 January, 2016 invoking the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 2. The husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') was involved in two adverse cases, o...
P. Radhakrishnan Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai District and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to change the patta as that of petitioner to the property in survey No.259/16 measuring about 350 Sq.ft. situated in Maravamangalam, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2016.) 1. There is no representation on the side of the petitioner. However, there is representation on the side of the respondents 1 to 3. 2. According to the petitioner, the property in Sy.No.259/16 measuring about 350 sq.ft, situated in Maravamangalam, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District, originally belonged to one Harikrishnan. As a matter of fact, the said Harikrishnan had purchased the said property from one Sundaraja Chettiar by means of registered sale deed in the month of August 2015. In fact, the petitioner purchased the said property from the said Harikrishnan through a registered sale deed dated 03.08.2015. From the...
Arumugathammal Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohib ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in M.H.S.Confdl.No.139/2015, dated 08.12.2015 on the file of the second respondent and quash the detention order against the petitioner's son Nagarajan, aged 27 years and direct to set at liberty of the petitioner's son from the Central Jail, Palayankottai.) 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the mother of Thiru.Nagarajan, who was detained by the District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, pursuant to the detention order dated 08 December, 2015. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The son of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') was involved in six adverse cases registered by Gangaikondan Police Station, Veeravanallur Police Station and Ambasamudram Police Station, under various provisions of Indian Penal Code. The ground case relates to the incident that took place on 15 November, 2015. The detenu threatened the complainant...
Nachiammal Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Othakadai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Registered Settlement Deed executed by petitioner's husband in her favour vide document No.49 of 1985 dated 23.01.1985 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Honourable Court by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 23.05.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the settlement deed dated 26.09.1983 (mentioned in his representation as 26.09.1983- but the correct date according to the petitioner is 23.01.1985) was registered as document No.49/1985. It appears that the said document requires payment of deficit stamp duty and the petitioner was informed that notice would be issued in this regard. But, till date, it appears that no action has been taken in the subject matter in issue, notwithstanding the fact that nearly 30 y...
M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd., now known as M/s. Saint Gobain Ind ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Common Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent herein in his proceedings in TIN/33511662391/2007-08, TIN/33511662391/2008-09, TIN/33511662391/2009-10, TIN/33511662391/2010-11, TIN/33511662391/2011-12, and quash the order dated 31.08.2015, passed therein and further direct the first respondent to appoint a higher official to personally inspect and decide the eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefit of input tax credit in respect of the disputed items which are used directly in the manufacture of goods including furnace oil and then decide the issue in accordance with law and facts of the case.) Common Order 1. Heard Mr.R.L.Ramani, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.B.Raveendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and with consent o...
P.S. Kalaiselvan Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Ma ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to demarcate and fix the boundary of the petitioner's property situated in Survey No.364/6A in old Patta No.535, New patta No.2432 at Soolapuram Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 31.10.2015.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed. 3. It comes to be known that the petitioner had submitted a representation as early as on 31.10.2015 before the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar, Periyur Taluk, Madurai District praying for measurement of his property in Sy.No.364/6A, measuring an extent of 7 ares in patta No.2432 at Soolapuram Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. The petitioner had paid proper fee of Rs.100 on 10.10.2015 for fixing boundary and demarcation of the property. Unfortunately, the said representation of the p...
Umamaheshwari and Another Vs. State through, The Sub Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.17 and 18 of 2016, dated 11.05.2016, in connection with Crime Nos.477 and 485 of 2016 respectively, on the file of the first respondent police.) Common Order: 1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.17 and 18 of 2016, dated 11.05.2016, in connection with Crime Nos.477 and 485 of 2016 respectively, on the file of the first respondent police. 2. The petitioner in both the Crl.O.Ps., are the de-facto complainant in Crime Nos.477 and 485 of 2016 respectively. 3. According to the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8218 of 2016, she gave a complaint on 18.04.2016 against the respondents 2 and 3 with the first respondent police stating that on 17.04.2016 the respondents 2 and 3 damaged t...
K. Ponnusamy Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Civil Supp ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd or 4th respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2016 with regard to issue the new family card or ration card.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he had applied for a new family card/ration card before the third respondent in petition No.695/2015 dated 10.06.2015. Also, he made a representation on 23.05.2016 for the purpose of getting new family card to the 3rd and 4th respondents through registered post and acknowledgement due. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the third and fourth respondents had not taken any steps in the subject matter in issue. Also, he had sent a reminder to the third respondent through RPAD on 07.06.2016. The real grievance of the petitioner is that his elder sons are joining the school during the acade...
Umamaheshwari Vs. State through, The Sub Inspector of Police and Other ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.17 and 18 of 2016, dated 11.05.2016, in connection with Crime Nos.477 and 485 of 2016 respectively, on the file of the first respondent police.) 1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.17 and 18 of 2016, dated 11.05.2016, in connection with Crime Nos.477 and 485 of 2016 respectively, on the file of the first respondent police. 2. The petitioner in both the Crl.O.Ps., are the de-facto complainant in Crime Nos.477 and 485 of 2016 respectively. 3. According to the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8218 of 2016, she gave a complaint on 18.04.2016 against the respondents 2 and 3 with the first respondent police stating that on 17.04.2016 the respondents 2 and 3 damaged the drainage pu...
T. Selvan Vs. The Sub Registrar, Boothapandi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the sale deed vide No.P27/2015, P75/2015 for lands situated in Sy.No.658/1, 658/2, 658/3, 659/1, 659/2, 658/6, 661/2 at Alagiyapandiyapuram Village by duly registering the same as per the Registration Act and vide the petitioner's representation dated 09.06.2016 within the time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he has filed the present writ petition praying for passing of an order in directing the respondent to release the sale deed vide Nos.P27/2015, P75/2015 for lands situated in Sy.Nos.658/1, 658/2, 658/3, 659/1, 659/2, 658/6, 661/2 at Alagiyapandiyapuram Village, by duly registering the sale deed as per the Registration Act, through his representation dated 09.06.2016, within the time determined by this Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »