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.
S. Anthonysamy Vs. The Tahsildar, Office of the Taluk Office, Trichy D ...
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 respondents herein to issue the computerised patta to the petitioner in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.138/1 situated at Theneripatti Village, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District in pursuance of the order passed by the first respondent in N.Ka.TK No.A/2/7225/2015 dated 27.11.2015 and on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 30.04.2016 within the time zstipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the 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 has filed the present writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the respondents to issue computerised patta to him, in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.138/1 situated at Theneripatti Village, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District, in pu...
Rethinam Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli D ...
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 Certiorari calling for the records culminated in the proceedings in R.C.A15456/2014, dated 03.11.2014 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal, unenforceable , ultra-vires, without authority and without jurisdiction.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner has circulated a letter, dated 13.07.2016 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 In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Karuppaiah Chettiar Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur and Another
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 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 5.10.2015 and 2.3.2016 for measuring and demarcating the petitioner's land putting Survey stones in Old Survey No. 41A/3 New S.No. 41 A/3 of No. 75, Kolakudi Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Pudukkottai District.) 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 owns a land measuring an extent of 19 cents in Old Sy.No.41 A/3 and New Sy.No.41 A/3A by way of registered sale deed dated 10.07.2002, for 10 cents and for another 9.09.0 cents on its immediate south by means of registered sale deed dated 08.12.2003, in the same survey number. 5. The stand of the petitioner is that he wants to put up construction peacefully without any objection from any quarters. According to him...
Navajothi @ Jothi and Another Vs. State Represented by The Deputy Supe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR in Crime No.50 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent / complainant.) 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.50 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 429, 341, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2005 by 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...
Dhanaraj Vs. The Tahsildar, Dindigul
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to issue the patta to the petitioner with regard to lands in Palayam Village S.No.139/2B situated at Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.) 1. None appears for the Petitioner. Heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondent. 3. According to the Petitioner, the land in Palayam Village in S.No.139/2 belongs to one Rathinam and Andiyappan. Likewise, the lands in Palayam Village S.No.1398/2, S.No.142/1 and S.No.139/2, measuring to an extent of 84 cents belongs to himself, his mother and his brother, who are enjoying the same respectively. During the year 1994, there was exchange of deed between the Petitioner and his family members on one side and others on the other side and had executed an exchange deed whereby and where-under, the 'A' schedule property was allo...
M. Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Distri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent to execute the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against the third respondent, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arupukottai, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in C.C.No.237 of 2014 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. M.Vijayalakshmi is very much upset in not police executing Non-Bailable Warrant issued as against her husband viz., P.Mohan. Thus, she wants issuance of direction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). R.Anbumathi, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arupukottai is present today. 3. In connection with the dowry demand case in C.C.No.237 of 2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arupukottai issued Non-Bailable Warrant as early as on 21.07.2015 as against the third respondent viz., Mohan, who is the husband of the petitioner Vijayalakshmi. The grievance o...
M. Chinnaiah Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Mu.Mu.No.9521/15/A2 dated 26.05.2016 passed by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 2nd Respondent to issue the legal heir certificate to the Petitioner within the time 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, his grandfather, Maruthan Samban was married to Mrs.Solaiammal and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two sons viz., 1. M.Kodanki and 2. M.Mookkan (the petitioner's father) and one daughter viz., Mrs.Peruchi Ammal (daughter). It comes to be known that the petitioner's grandfather Maruthan Samban died on 10.05.1957. Later, his wife Solaiammal also died. After their deat...
Ramanathan Vs. The State Information Commissioner, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to furnish the Auditing Report for the period from 1995 -2014 pertaining to Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukkovil, Irukkankudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District vide Representation dated 23.03.2015 within the stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent and the Learned Standing Counsels for the first and third respondents. 2. It appears that the petitioner's appeal filed before the first respondent on 29.06.2015 is still pending for disposal. At this stage, the grievance of the petitioner is that he sent a first representation on 23.03.2015 addressed to the third respondent under the Right to Information Act, seeking 13 information. Later, he sent another representation on 18.02.2016 to the first respondent and that he has not recei...
Hotel Sangam, Owned by Sangu Chakra Hotels Private Ltd., Tiruchirappal ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of Writ Court dated 29.04.2008, made in W.P.(MD)Nos.1080 and 1487 of 2008.) Common Judgment 1. The appellants enjoyed the privilege of FL3 licence continuously for years together and when demand was made to pay the privilege fee, they have filed Writ Petitions challenging the levy, primarily on the ground that four star gradation and three star gradation were not renewed periodically and as such, there is no liability to pay the fee as claimed by the Excise Department. BRIEF FACTS: W.A.(MD)No.496 of 2008 [against W.P.(MD)No.1080 of 2008]: 2. The appellant established a Hotel in the name and style of 'Hotel Sangam' at Collector's Office Road, Tiruchirappalli. The Hotel was classified as a four star hotel for a period of three years with effect from 16 November, 1993. The appellant obtained FL3 licence based on the four star classification. The Licensing Authority issued the licence and it was rene...
A. Alwarsamy Vs. Jothi Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kovilpatti
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the Contemnor/Respondent for wilful and disobedience of the orders of this Court made in W.P(mD)No.17839 of 2014 on 6.11.2014) 1. It is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the Respondent that the request of the Petitioner for change of patta based on Civil Court Degree was rejected by the Respondent/The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. 2. In view of the fact that the Respondent had passed the rejection order dated 13.7.2016, inter-alia stating that the Petitioner had not submitted the proper documents on the date of enquiry I.e., on 2.2.2015 and on 11.7.2016, when the atter was taken up for re-enquiry. 3. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's request was rejected by the Respondent, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to assail the legality,validity and correctness of the order, dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Respondent/The Tahsildar, Tal...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »