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.
D.V. Subburam Vs. State represented by The Superintendent of Police, V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents, particularly the 3rd and 4th respondents to execute the order of the 2nd respondent dated 03.06.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents, particularly the 3rd and 4th respondents to execute the order of the 2nd respondent dated 03.06.2016. 2. There is no representation for the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that already a case has been registered under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC in Crime No.104 of 2016. 3. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
J. Avathy and Others Vs. The Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Common Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to disburse all the original certificates that the petitioners in all writ petitions had submitted before the 2nd and 3rd respondents at the time of admission.) Common Order: 1. The petitioners filed separate writ petitions, seeking a direction to the second and third respondents to issue all the original certificates that they have submitted before the second and third respondents at the time of admission. 2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3. The petitioners having completed M.B.B.S. Course in University of Kerala in the Academic year 2005-2011, 2007-2013 and 2005-2011 respectively, did their internship in Medical College at Tiruvananthapuram and obtained necessary certificates on 24.02.2012, 05.12.2013 and 02.01.2012 respectively, and thereafter they have obtained the Faculty of Medicine o...
Kayalvizhi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to give necessary police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.06.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to give necessary police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 20.06.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she fell in love with one Ravikumar for 7 years, which subsequently ended in their marriage; that the petitioner's father, being a Doctor, is opposed to the said marriage and is causing disturbance to their marital life. It is alleged that since the life of the petitioner and her husband is at stake at the hands of the petitioner's father, they lodged a complaint dated 20.06.2016 ...
K. Ganesan Vs. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpora ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner with 18% interest.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. For ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has obtained written instructions...
A. Chandran and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order as made in ROC No.85 of 2016 dated 03.03.2016 in Special Case No.45 of 2011 passed by the Special Court for Trial of P.C. Act Cases, Madurai as devoid of merits in respect of the properties as stated as appealed before this Hon'ble Court vide C.A.No.23 of 2016 forthwith.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. In the Special Case in S.C.No.45 of 2011, the Special Judge convicted the petitioners. Besides sentencing them also directed confiscation of the proceeds of crime. As against that, Crl.A.(MD)No.23 of 2016 has been preferred before this Court. Admittedly, in the C.rlA.(MD)No.23 of 2016, an application to stay further proceedings pursuant to confiscation order has not been filed. Further, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., consequent upon the order passed by the trial Court ordering attachment in pursuance of orders of confiscation. 3. The Criminal Appeal is admitted...
J. Jebin Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint dated 23.08.2013 preferred by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 498(A) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to take action against the accused in accordance with law.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint dated 23.08.2013 preferred by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 498(A) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to take action against the accused in accordance with law. 2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that pursuant to the non-cooperation on the side of the petitioner, the complaint 23.08.2013, preferred by the petitioner has been closed. 3. There is an undertaking by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will co-op...
K. Lakshmi and Others Vs. The Chairperson/Commissioner of Land Reforms ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders to grant property situated at Plot No.8, Block B4 at S.No.537/2 of Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin Revenue District under the provisions of The Tamilnadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958, by way of issuing patta to the petitioner, on the basis of the representation dated 13.1.2016 sent by the petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the 10 acres of land situated at Sy.No.537/2 of Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District belongs to Boodan Yagna Board, which has developed and divided the said property into plots. Furthermore, for more than 12 years, she is enjoying the aforesaid property situated at plot No.8, Block B4 by rearing pigs. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respond...
Marimuthuppandian Vs. Solaipriya and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
1. In this revision, practically, a father is fighting against his daughter. The father is the revision petitioner and the daughter is the second respondent. 2. Wife / first respondent wanted to bid goodbye to her husband / revision petitioner permanently. So, she sought for divorce in H.M.O.P. But, the husband is not for it. He is for living together. So, he filed H.M.O.P., for restitution of conjugal rights. But, their daughter is not a party to the dispute between her parents. Both the wife and daughter have sought for maintenance in M.C.No.12 of 2014. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, taking note of the fact that the first respondent is earning as a Teacher, negatived maintenance for her. However, taking into account the earnings of her father, the learned Magistrate granted Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent. Aggrieved, the father has directed this revision. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the first respondent herself...
Thamaraipandi Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue the ration card said to be cancelled by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner by considering and disposing of petitioner's application dated 9.9.2015 within stipulated time as may be 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. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. According to the petitioner, one of his daughters viz., Jeya got married and went to bridegroom's home. With a view to delete her name from the petitioner's ration-card and to include her name in her husband's ration card, the petitioner submitted an application before the second respondent. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the second respondent/Taluk Supply Officer, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, informed the petitioner that his ration card itself has ...
Kundumalai Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned auction notice dated 13.06.2016 in Na.Ka.No.A1/400/2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to conduct the public auction after issuing notice to all the intending tenderers and also after issuing public notice.) 1. Mr. Kundumalai, challenges the impugned order dated 13.06.2016 issued by the second respondent, namely, Executive Officer, Special Grade Town Panchayat, Tirupuvanam, Sivagangai District, wherein, the second respondent has decided to conduct for public auction with regard to 'pay and use toilet' in daily market at Sivagangai District. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, when the petitioner is anxiously waiting for participation in the pubic auction, the second respondent has issued the auction notice only to the selected bidders of his own choice fixing the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »