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.
V. Manoharan Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2016 and not to disturb the petitioner work allotted process pertaining to the removal of Seemaikaruvela at Rasingaperi Pond and the place of Kadambankulam and consequently, grant permission to do the work.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the petitioner, although he was appointed as a contractor for removal of 'Seemai Karuvelamara' projects, the respondents 2 to 4 without conducting enquiry, are not issuing the work allotment order and therefore, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents 1 to 5 on 17.02.2016, with a copy being marked to the concerned authorities, whereby and whereunder, made a request that no hardship be caused to him by the Government Officials in regard to the removal of 'Seemai Karuvela trees' (as per the tender taken out by him). 3. In view of th...
The Parish Priest, St. Mary Magdalane Church, Dindigul District and An ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue Patta in the name of the 1st petitioner Church in respect of land at Survey No. 133 of Vakkampatti Village, Dindigul District admeasuring 4.26 ares on the basis of the proposal submitted by the 1st petitioner dated 03.12.2015.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's church is in existence for more than 200 years. Indeed, the whole church building is constructed in Sy.No.133, admeasuring 4.26 ares and at survey Nos.138/11 and 138/19, admeasuring 27 cents of Vakkampatti Village, Dindigul District and the same is in possession of the church from the date of its establishment. 4. The real grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent/Tahsildar, Attur Taluk, Dindigul District is not passing any orders on the application submitted by ...
Vellaisamy Vs. The Tahsildar, Sivagangai District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to measure the lands measuring 3 cents in survey No. 35/1B2 and 27 cents in survey no. 36/1A1 situated in Sirumarudhur Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on the patta No. 1290 within the stipulated period and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the land measuring 1 acre 52 cents in Sy.No.35/1 and 65 cents in Sy.No.36/1 in Sirumarudhur Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District are originally belonged to him ancestrally. He sold an extent of 48 cents of southern side in Sy.No.35/1 and 32 cents of Sy.No.36/1 to one Karuppiah, S/o.Kalimuthan Ambalam through sale deed dated 21.03.1977. Subsequently, the said Karuppiah sold the properti...
D. Rajasekaran Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR)
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in CMP No.96 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur and quash the same.) "TAMIL 1. [As right conduct and disciplined way of life lead to eminence, it should be cherished and preserved carefully than even one's life.] 2. This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in CMP No.96 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur and quash the same. 3. Ex hypothesi, the staff of the Court and the Presiding Officer are like the siamese twins, in that, one cannot exist without the other. They partner together for the cause of justice. Mutual respect for each other and strict adherence to the command structure is sine qua non for the smooth functioning of the system. Unfortunately, Mr.D.Rajasekaran, the Central Nazir of ...
A.S. Anbsar and Others Vs. Majilis-Ul-Ulama Regd. Society Rep. by its ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order, dated 25.04.2016 made in I.A.No.571 of 2016 in O.S.No.566 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli.) 1. This civil revision is filed challenging the order passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli, dated 25.04.2016 and made in I.A.No.571 of 2016 in O.S.No.566 of 2016. 2. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for bare injunction and also filed an application in I.A.No.571 of 2016 for temporary injunction and the learned Subordinate Judge, without giving any reason and without any regard to the Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, passed a cryptic order and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside and the civil revision has to be allowed. 3. Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior counsel appearing for ...
A. Subramanian Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(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 consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 12.5.2016 as well as the application of the Petitioner dated 9.3.2016 and consequently to issue patta in the Petitioner's name to the property measuring to an extent of 4 cents bearing S.No.208/4C, in Surakulam Group of Sivagangai, Sivagangai District as per the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/2454/2013, dated 1.10.2014.) 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 purchased the property measuring an extent of 4 cents in S.No. S.No.208/4C, in Surakulam Group of Sivagangai, Sivagangai District from his vendor namely G.Rajam by means of a registered sale deed, dated 11.12.2002. From the date of purchase of the said property, he is in exclusive possession ...
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 24.09.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.12219 of 2012.) Nootyramamohana Rao, J. 1. The learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner have drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court on 14.11.2014 in W.A(MD)No.1321 of 2014. The reasons have been spelt out in paragraph '7' of the said order. 2. We are in respectful agreement with the reasons assigned by the Honourable Division Bench in deciding the said writ appeal. Hence, the present appeal is also dismissed for the very same reasons as in the W.A(MD)No.1321 of 2014. No costs....
B. Satheesh Kumar Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry and register the case in complaint dated 15.10.2015 against the proposed accused persons.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry and register a case based on the complaint dated 15.10.2015 against the proposed accused persons. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the complaint dated 15.10.2015, given by the petitioner, a case has already been registered in Crime No.62 of 2016 dated 28.04.2016 for an offence under Section 379 IPC. The said statement is recorded. 3. In view of the above statement made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is of the view that nothing survives for further adjudication in this petition. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is closed....
N. Muthiah Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secret ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(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 pass appropriate orders based on the recommendation made by the fourth respondent by considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 8.7.2015.) 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 elected as Secretary of the Hindu Middle School, Ambasamudiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and his tenure as Secretary also came to an end. Further, since no parents came forward to admit their children in the said school, they were not in a position to administer the school and develop the same. As a matter of fact, originally 13 teachers were working in the said school and due to the diminishing in the strength of the students, no fresh appointments were made after those teachers attained their age of superannuation. 4. The stand o...
Kala Pethatchi Vs. State rep.by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, in Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2016, dated 20.01.2016 and to return the silver ingots of 6 Kg to the petitioner.) 1. This matter is squarely covered by the Apex Court's Judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2003 (1) CTC 175 (SC)]. 2. This revision arises out of dismissal of a property return petition in Cr.M.P.No.250 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. 3. The revision petitioner owns a house in Chettinadu. She is residing in Kottur in Chennai. A property offence has been committed in her Chettinad house. She lodged complaint alleging missing of silver articles. The said complaint has been registered in Crime No.100 of 2014, under Sections 454 (or) 457, 380 I.P.C., by the Chettinadu Police. 4. Later the accused was apprehended. In the course of investigation, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »