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.
The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, (Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03.07.2007 and made in M.C.O.P.No.311 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kuzhithalai.) 1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Kuzhithalai made in M.C.O.P.No.311 of 2006 dated 03.07.2007. 2. According to the claimants, on 22.09.2006 at 12.00 p.m, the deceased Veeramalai was driving a Lorry bearing Registration No.TMW 5679 on Trichy-Madurai Highway. While so, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-6357 belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation, which was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry. In that accident, the said Veeramalai died on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a petition before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. The appellant Transport Corporation...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In the instant case, it comes to be known that the first respondent had issued a proceedings in Ref.No.TNTEU/Elig/2016/188 undated addressed to the Principal of the third respondent stating that the petitioner was admitted to B.Ed., programme without following the admission guidelines (G.O.No.(1D) No.168 dated 07.07.2015). Further, in the said proceedings, in the remarks column, it is stated as under: Remarks 12th std. is not completed. Hence, she is NOT ELIGIBLE for admission to B.Ed., Programme. 3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Directorate of Distance and Continuing Education of the second respondent University in ENROL.No.A10C25079006, dated 13.06.2016, had inter alia stated that 'A pass in this course (Degree Bridge Course II year) is equivalent to a pass in +2/H.Sc. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner is not eligible for the B.Ed., cour...
K. Ravichandran Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 09.07.2015 of the First Respondent made in his proceedings Pa.Mu.P5/33768/2014, confirming the order of the 2nd Respondent, dated 18.06.2014 made in his proceedings Pa.Mu.(P1)85452/2012 and quash the same.) Order: 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner; the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition prayed for calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 09.07.2015 passed by the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, in confirming the order of the Second Respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, dated 18.06.2014. 4. The Writ Facts:- ...
A. Krishnan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corru ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 20.05.2016.) 1. In this Crl.O.P., under Section 482 Cr.P.C,. Krishnan, the petitioner herein, came forward to direct the 2nd respondent, namely, DSP, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Virudhunagar District at Virudhunagar to register a criminal case as against Malarvizhi, V.A.O., Rajapalayam Town, investigate and proceed further as per law. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said woman V.A.O is a corrupt lady. She acted with corrupt motive. As she is a corrupt woman she has to be corrected by taking action under the prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Almost the power exercised by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is akin to the power exercised by a learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The difference is one being exercised by this Court and the other being exercised by the Magistrate. In sum ...
K. Gopalram Vs. Muthumari
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to Crl.A.No.2 of 2015 in Crl.M.P.No.4354 of 2013 in M.C.No.76 of 2014 (Crl.M.P.No.1828 of 2010) on the file of the 6thAdditional District Court, Madurai, and to set aside the same.) 1. Gopalram, party-in-person, aggrieved by certain portions of the order, dated 06.11.2015, passed in C.A.No.2 of 2015, by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, has directed this revision. 2. The revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Difference of opinion arose between them. Now, they are not living together. It is the outcome of the family dispute. In the circumstances, the respondent filed Cr.M.P.No.1828 of 2010, under D.V.Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai. Later, it was transferred to the file of the learned Additional Mahila Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and renumbered as M.C.No.76 of 2014. In the said case, almost the main family members...
P. Chithiraiselvi and Others Vs. The Tahsildar, Santhankulam Taluk, Th ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(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 grant patta entry in the Petitioner's name in respect of the properties in S.No.278, in Flat No.29, situated at Mudalur, Santhankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District in the Petitioner's name, in the light of the applications, Jamabandhi 1420, Pasali year on 3.6.2011. 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 grant patta entry in the Petitioner's name in respect of the properties in S.No.141 A/1B in Plot No.14, situated at Sivanathapuram Pannamparai Village, Santhankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District in the Petitioner's name, in the light of the applications, Jamabandhi 1420, Pasali year on 12.6.2014. Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the r...
A.P. Thambi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondents to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner, dated 08.02.2016, and investigate the same in accordance with law.) 1. The petitioner came forward, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for a direction to the respondents to register a case as against the H.R. and C.E., officials and certain connected persons in Mandaikadu Bagavathi Amman Temple, in Kanyakumari District. 2. The petitioner is interested in the proper running of the said Bagavathi Amman Temple. It is alleged that there are misdeeds, irregularities and commission of criminal misconducts with regard to Archana Plates and various other items. 3. The respondents have filed counter and also a status report. 4. It is stated that the complaint of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Joint Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., Suchindram, for enquiry. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P (MD) No...
Pavala Malliga Vs. The District Collector, Thiruchirappalli and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 24.04.2016 to effect necessary entries in respect of the Petitioner's property comprised in S.No.60/3G measuring an extent of 3 acres Punja lands situated in Aryamangalam Village, Thiruchirappalli District.) 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 belongs a poor and downtrodden community and submit her application before the First Respondent/The District Collector, Thiruchirappalli District, Thiruchirappalli and after verification and necessary scrutiny, the First Respondent assigned the land in S.No.60/3, sub-divided as S.No.60/3G measuring 3 acres of Punja lands. In fact, the said lands were assigned by means of an order, dated 10.6.1974. 4. The categorical plea of the Petitioner is...
T. Vimala and Others Vs. S. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petitions is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 25.10.2013 made in Cr.R.P.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Sessions Court, Dindigul and set aside the same by allowing the above Criminal Revision Petition and modifying order dated 14.09.2012 made in M.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani.) 1. The revision petitioners 2 and 3, who are daughters of the respondent and the first revision petitioner, have directed this revision through their mother/first revision petitioner. 2. Family dispute arose between the first revision petitioner and the respondent. They got separated. Their daughters namely, revision petitioners 2 and 3 are with their mother. The mother and daughters have sought for maintenance in M.C.No.1 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani. 3. The learned Magistrate considering the materials on record, awarded them maintenanc...
P.C. Perumalsamy Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 16.3.2016 and exhume the dead bodies buried by the Respondent No.4 at the entrance of the Petitioner's lands in S.Nos.727/8,727/9,727/10,727/11 and 727/12 situate adjacent to Reddiarchathiram-SeethamaramNal Road in Gurunathannayakanur Village, Reddiarchathiram Union, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District and rebury the same in the burial ground ear-marked in the village within the time frame prescribed by this Court.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3. In respect of Respondent No.4, to avoid avoidable delay, notice is dispensed with. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he along with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »