Chennai Madurai Court July 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.
Boiler Plant Employees Union, Trichy Vs. The Managing Director, BHEL E ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to release the fixed deposit amount in F.D.No.501070746 based upon the order in I.A.No.902 of 2015 and based upon the joint memo undertaking filed in O.S.No.1149 of 2015 to the Petitioner, if necessary go get an indemnity bond from the Petitioner.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner has circulated a letter, dated 28.7.2016, to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
S. Kumaresan and Another Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to measure and demarcate the property in accordance with law comprised in S.Nos.812/2, 813/3A, 813/3C, Dindigul District by considering the representation of Petitioner, dated 8.7.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, 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 Petitioners, their father executed a registered Settlement Deed, dated 5.5.2009 bequeathing the property in the first Petitioner's name as well as his brother/Second Petitioner's name. Ever since from the date of execution of Settlement Deed, the revenue records like Patta, Chitta and Adangal stands in their name and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. 5. The grievance of the Petitioners is that after the execution of Settlement Deed by ...
D. Thiagarajan Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for the records pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his letter dated 18.07.2016 and quash the same and consequentially direct the 1st respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner No. TR. 1079486057116 so as to enable the petitioner to attend the Natural Agricultural farm to Quba and Europe Countries scheduled to be held from 13.09.2016 to 27.09.2016.) 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, he is a B.Tech (Program) Graduate and he is doing intensive traditional cultivation of his own land and also that he is an active member in the Tanjore Fish Farming Development Agency, Tiruvarur from the year 2009 onwards. Further, he had attended training in the Fish Training Centre in...
S. Siva Vs. The Director of Elementary Education, Office of the Direct ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of reversion passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5966/Aa4/2011 dated 22.12.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to restore the petitioner to the post of B.T.Assistant (English) in any of the vacancies in Narikudi Union at Panchayat Union Middle Schools at Rengaiyanpatti and Sullangudi Virudhunagar District without any delay.) T. Raja, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition to which he also circulated a letter to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this Writ Petition, apart from making an endorsement, in the bundle. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed....
S. Siluvai Gnanamani Vs. The District Collector and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(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 issue a fresh Patta Pass-Book in favour of the Petitioner to his property bearing S.No.136-A/7, situated at Iraipuvari Village, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District measuring an extent of 37 cents on the basis of his representation dated 25.6.2016 after making necessary changes in the A Register.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, 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, he is in absolute possession of the landed property bearing S.No.136A/7, measuring an extent 0.15.00 hectares equivalent to 37 cents, situated at Iraipuvari Village, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. 5. It appears that the Petitioner is in need of a patta for the above said property, which he was in absolute possession since 16.10.2015 in his favour,...
M. Nava Pichaiya Samuvel Vs. S. Jayanthimary
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer :Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the proceedings in I.D.O.P.No.66 of 2015 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Madurai to try along with G.W.O.P.No.24 of 2015.) 1. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter has been settled amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench. 2. A perusal of the report of the Mediation Centre would show that the matter has been settled amicably based on the compromise memo dated 22.07.2016. 3. Recording the same, this petition is closed. No costs. The memo of compromise shall form part and parcel of the decree. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed....
M. Duraisamy Vs. The Revenue Divisional officer, Sivagangai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned notification in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/3026/2015, dated 5.7.2016 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and further to direct the first respondent to issue fresh notification to auction for cutting and removing the veli Karuvai trees situated in S.No.175, North Group, Thamaraki, Sivagangai District on area basis.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. In view of the averments made by the First Respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai at Para 9 of the Counter to the following effect: ''9.It is respectfully submitted that the averment of the Petitioner herein in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 as well as the Grounds paragraphs (I) to (vi) are repetitious, imaginary and devoid of truth, as it has been clearly stated in the Notification that the successful bidder can cut and re...
S. Manimaran Vs. The Joint Director of School Education and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 15.06.2016 requesting the 1st respondent to regularize the petitioner service and to pay time scale of pay who was appointed as Vocational Teacher in the 3rd respondent school on 28.06.2000 and working there for the past 16 years on temporary basis.) 1. Mr.S.Manimaran, was appointed as Vocational Instructor in the third respondent Government Higher Secondary School. The said appointment was made through Parent Teachers Association. Several persons appointed through vocational teachers association were regularised. Although the petitioner has put in more than 16 long years of service in the third respondent School, till date, he has not been regularised and representation sent in this regard did not evoke any response. Subsequently, even though the petitioner was called for certificate verificatio...
Pethakkal Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelvel ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to stop the illegal functioning of the brick kiln run by the 8th respondent in R.S.No.572/3B19A in Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. To Avoid an avoidable delay, Notice to the Eighth Respondent is dispensed with. 3. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 4. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 5. According to the Petitioner, her representation, dated 31.05.2016, addressed to Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, praying for stopping of unlawful construction of brick kiln chamber, considering the fact that the lives of Petitioner and the health must be protected, till date is not yet disposed of by them. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court for passing of necessary orders. 6. The grievance of the Petit...
M. Chitra and Others Vs. Selvakumar, The Joint Director, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts Court Act,1971 to call upon the contemnor/respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.22731 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015.) T. Raja. J, 1. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the order under contempt has been complied with, which is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Since the order under contempt is complied with, this Contempt Petition stands closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »