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.
X. Jeyanth Vs. The Inspector of Police, Thenbagam Police Station, Tuti ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crime No.863 of 2012 on the file of the 1st respondent police station and quash the same, as it has no prima facie case as against the petitioner.) 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. On the complaint of father-in-law alleging that his daughter was subjected to cruelty and torture, a case in Crime No.863 of 2012 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the 1st respondent against the petitioner/accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the second respondent, appeared i...
S. Thillainayagam Vs. The District Collector, District Collector's Off ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(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 18.05.2016 and refer the application to the competent authority under Section 3(G)(5) of the NationalHighways Act. ) 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, his father was the absolute owner of the property situated in R.S.No.16/2, Paraipathi Village, Madurai South, measuring an extent of 1.70 acres under the Settlement Deed, dated 07.01.1974. His father settled the entire property in favour of his brother Ashokan and himself. Subsequently, there was an oral partition and the property was divided and he was allotted the property situated in R.S.No.16/2A2, measuring an extent of 32 ares(patta No.756). 5. The stand of the Petitioner is t...
Pommusamy Vs. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Petitioner's vehicle TATA INDICA V2 DLE Car, bearing Registration No. TN 67 F 4142 and to handover the same to the Petitioner within the time limit stipulated 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....
Velraj and Another Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Cha ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: IN W.P(MD)No.7097 of 2015: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation dated 20.4.2015 and to renew the leasehold interest of the Petitioner for the land measuring an extent of 3 acres and 11 cents in Survey No.158/4, Mappillaiyoorani Village, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi District belonging to Arulmighu Sankara Rameswarar Thirukkovil, Thoothukudi.) Prayer: IN W.P(MD)No.7098 of 2015: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation dated 20.4.2015 and to renew the leasehold interest of the Petitioner for the land measuring an extent of 3 acres and 58 cents in Survey No.159, Mappillaiyoorani Village, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi District belonging to Arulmighu Sankara Rameswarar Thirukkovil, Thoothukudi.) Common Order 1. The learned counsel on reco...
S. Suresh Kumar Vs. The Taluk Surveyor, Thoothukudi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned Notice in Survey boundary application No.193/2016, dated 14.07.2016, on the file of the 2nd Respondent and quash the same.) 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 1 and 2. 4. Insofar as Respondent No.3 is concerned, to avoid an avoidable delay, Notice is dispensed with. 5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned Memo, dated 14.07.2016, issued by the Second Respondent / Taluk Sub-Inspector of Survey, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi, requiring the Petitioner to appear on 16.07.2016 at 10.00 a.m., for the purpose of measurement work, with necessary documents showing the rights, is an unlawful and illegal one because of the simple reason that, as per Section 15(2) ...
Ohm Srinivasa Paper Boards Private Limited, rep. By its Managing Direc ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to sanction the insurance amount to the sum of Rs.2,87,85,380/-(Two Crores Eighty Seven Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Rupees only) to the petitioner in accordance with the insurance policy vide Policy no.0909001115P105647853 and Policy No.0909001115P105354933 along with 9% interest from the date of accident i.e. 07.11.2015 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2016 within the time period stipulated 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, he is the Managing Director of Ohm Srinivasa Paper Boards Private Limited situate at Sinthapalli Village, Venkatachalapuram Post, Via Sattur, Virudhunagar District. He has insured his company as per Insur...
M. Shanmugasundaram Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transp ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(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 gratuity of Rs.4,15,107/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner I.e.on 28.02.2013.) 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...
B. Annamalai Vs. State represented through the Inspector of Police, Ma ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.805 of 2016 in C.C.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai dated 04.07.2016.) 1. Practically, this revision petition could be termed as petition to recall N.B.W. 2. There are 7 accused, who are being prosecuted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in C.C.No.5 of 2015, for their alleged commission of certain economic offences. The personal appearance of the petitioner/A5 has been dispensed with by this Court, while disposing of his quash petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.12416 of 2011 and 648 to 650 of 2015. 3. In this case, trial has started. Prosecution witnesses are being produced. In the circumstances, on 16.06.2016, prosecution produced witness Nos.20 and 21. Since none has represented the petitioner/A5, not even his counsel was present, his absence was noted by the Court and N.B.W. ordered against A5. Consequently, the witn...
J. Pari Usman Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Co ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(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 provident fund and gratuity of Rs.5,96,199/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner I.e.on 30.04.2015.) 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 lear...
Karthigaijothi Vs. The Tahsildar, Madurai District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.1541/2016, dated 25.05.2016 (but signed on 26.05.2016) quash the same.) 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 1 and 2. 4. According to the Petitioner, originally, the property in Survey No.126/5A4 belonged to one Pechiyammal, by means of registered Sale Deed. As a matter of fact, on 03.06.1963, one Seethalakshmi Ammal purchased the aforesaid property from Pechiyammal, by means of Sale Deed, bearing Document No.3468/1963. From the day one, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same by mutating the Revenue Records in her favour. 5. When that be the facts situation, in the year 1998, the said Seethalakshmi Ammal sold the aforesaid property to one Arumugam...