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. Rajasekaran Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport C ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the retirement benefits with interest to the petitioner in view of the representation dated 14.06.2016.) 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 submit...
Manikandan and Others Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime No.56 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.) 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Acase in Crime No.56 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Actby the 1st respondent against the petitioners. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners and the second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) th...
M. Mahendran Vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to permit the petitioner's son viz., M. Madhan Kumar to continue his education in the fourth respondent in XI standard.) 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 R1 to R3. Counter of R4 is filed. 4. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Fourth Respondent / Sakthi Vinayagar Hindu Vidyalaya School to permit his son viz., M.Madhan Kumar to continue his education in XI standard. According to the petitioner, his elder son M.Madhan Kumar was studying in the Fourth Respondent / School from the year 2006 ? 07 academic year from his first standard and wrote the board exam for the X standard in March-2016 and had secured 6.8 grade points out of 10. Subsequently, he had approached the Four...
P. Canisius Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the Order dated 10.05.2016 in un numbered Crl.M.P.SR.No.3706 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, set aside the same.) 1. Aggrieved by the return of his property return petition, the defacto complainant directed this revision. 2. In a moving train, the defacto complainant has been robbed of his valuables. Gold valuables has been seized by the investigation officer. It has to be produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi. The revision petitioner filed petition to return the said property to himself. It was returned by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the case property is not produced before the Court and also certain factual matrix have to be stated. 3. The approach of the Magistrate is not correct. Under Section 457 Cr.P.C., if a case property is seized by the Police and if it is not produced ...
R. Saravanan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai 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 respondents to consider Petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2016 respectively within stipulated time framed 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. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 17.02.2016 addressed to the respondents 1 and 2 has not been considered by the concerned authorities in a proper manner. In the said representation dated 17.02.2016, the petitioner had sought for issuance of joint patta in their family name. 5. At this stage, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2016 would be considered by the authorities concerned, within the time fixed by this Court. 6. Considering the fact that ...
K. Pasupathy Vs. Shiyamala Devi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree in A.S.No.88 of 2010, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District, dated 22.08.2011, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.128 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District, dated 30.06.2010.) 1. The appellant/fifth defendant has come forward with this Second Appeal challenging the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No.88 of 2010, dated 22.08.2011, by the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai by modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.128 of 2005, dated 30.06.2010, by the District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai for granting declaration that the first respondent / plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Govindan and the first respondent / plaintiff is entitled to family pension and the plaintiff and the defendants 4 and 5 are entitled to other gratuity and retirement benefits. 2. Heard the lea...
Krishnamoorthy andAnother Vs. The Inspector of Police, Elumalai Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. praying to call for the records in Crime No.164 of 2014, pending on the file of the respondent Police and quash the criminal proceeding.) 1. Section 482 Cr. P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. A case in Crime No.164 of 2014 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 324, 325 and 506(i) IPC by the respondent against the petitioners. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners and the defacto complainant, appeared in person and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) thr...
Nisha Parveen Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Respondents to register a case/FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 20.05.2016 lodged with the 2nd respondent and investigate into the matter in accordance with law and file a final report within a period of prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register a case/FIR on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 20.05.2016 lodged with the 2nd respondent and investigate into the matter. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, who would submit that already a case has been registered under Sections 498(A), 323, 109 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002 in Crime No.15 of 2016. 3. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
S.P. Velayutham Vs. Mosai Valsalam
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.353 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.) Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Based on the private complaint preferred against the petitioner, learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 420 and 34 IPC in C.C.No.353 of 2009. 2.1. According to the allegation made in the complaint, the first and second accused alone issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.39,00,000/- and this pet...
S. Prashad Vs. The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk Office, Madurai Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and pass orders on the Petitioner's representation, dated 14.3.2016 within the time limit prescribed by this Court.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the Writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »