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.
P. Saravanan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kumbako ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 10.07.2012 passed in S.T.C.No.2174 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.) 1. In this Revision Petition, the accused in S.T.C.No.2174 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District challenges his conviction and sentence awarded to him. The accused belongs to a place at Kumbakonam in Thanjavur District. It is alleged that on 09.07.2012, at about 6.00 p.m., near the Kumbakonam Government Bus Depot, to the annoyance of public, he scolded in obscene language. R.Sudha, Sub Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam West Post Station brought him to the police station. She gave a complaint. She is the complainant. She herselfinvestigated the case. She had recorded statement under Section 161 ofCr.P.C. Kumar and C.Machendran, who are the then Special Sub-Inspector of Police ...
N. Muruganantham Vs. The District Collector, Theni District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Respondents from issuing patta to any third party to the land in Survey No.189, after sub-division T.S.No.1/15, situated at Allinagaram Village, Theni by considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 21.06.2016.) 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 Petitioner, in-front of his property bearing Survey No.189(later sub-divided into T.S.No.1/15) measuring an extent of 10 cents, which he purchased by means of registered sale deed, dated 10.07.2002. There is a Bye-pass Road connecting Theni with other Districts and the said Bye-pass Road is still in existence and the public are using the same. Further, in order to put up construction in the vacant land, he approached the Third Respondent/The Town Pla...
Katturaja and Others Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur District an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant patta for petitioner's house site situated in Natham Puramboku land, Survey No.236/4 an extent of 2 cents situated at Pillayar Koil Street, Mela Maruthuvakkudi, Aduthurai-612 101, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District, by considering his representation dated 16.10.2015, within the period stipulated by this Honourable 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 1 and 2. 4. According to the petitioner, he is a poor agricultural coolie and is residing in the said address since his childhood. His father came into possession of Natham Poromboke land in Sy.No.236/4, measuring an extent of 2 cents situate at Pillayar Koil Street, Mela Mruthuvakkudi, Aduthurai, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District 40 years ago and put up ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was working as Headmaster in Government Kallar Higher Secondary School at Anaipatti, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District, and also the accused in Crime No.38 of 2012, to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the second respondent, vide order dated 13.12.2012, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17660 of 2012 and consequent time extension order, dated 13.10.2015, passed in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17660 of 2012 and consequently, direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, to cancel the bail granted to the second respondent and direct the first respondent to arrest and remand the second respondent. 2. The second respondent has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 409, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. He filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17660 of 2012 for anticipatory bail. This Court, by order dated 13.12.2012 granted anticipatory bail to him. But, he did not execute the surety and comply with conditions ...
T. Poolammal Vs. M.K. Kuzhanthaivel, District Revenue Officer, Tirunel ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the Contemnor/Respondent for wanton and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.10586 of 2015, dated 26.6.2015.) 1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made an endorsement in the Contempt Petition(MD)No.758 of 2016, to the effect that the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.10586 of 2015, dated 26.06.2015 is complied with and that the Contempt Petition may be closed. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Contempt Petition stands closed....
M. Arunachalam Vs. The General Manager, Madurai District Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus thereby direct the 2nd respondent to disburse the money due under the cash certificate of the petitioner issued by the 2nd respondent with subsequent interest at 18% till the payment of entire amount.) 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, he had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 21.02.2000 with the 2nd respondent Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank under 'Fixed Deposit Scheme'. The maturity date of the deposit was on 21.01.2016. In fact, the Bank had issued a Cash Certificate in favour of the petitioner mentioning the date of issue as '21.01.2000' and the date of maturity deposit of Rs.10,000/- as '21.01.2016'. It is to be noted that after a lapse of 16 years, on the date of maturity viz., 21.01.2016, the 2nd respondent Bank...
Padmanabha Dasa Uthradom Thirunal and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent, DRO, Tirunelveli, vide ROC.No.Z 2 91882/2008, dated 26.02.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.3,6 and 7 to restore the name of Maharaja of Travancore in Sy.Nos.33/1,5,7,3,6,34/1,2,3,30/2,355/2,482/53, 190/5, 191/3, 192/2, 194/2, 196/2, 35/2, 3, 30/1A, 1B, 22/1, 2, 23/2A/1 in Courtalam Village, Senkottai Taluk, having an extent of 56.68 acres in the revenue records. Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15.11.2014 and 17.09.2015 and further, direct him to rectify the error committed by the department in changing the name in the patta pertaining to S.Nos.33/1, 5,7,3,6,34/1,...
V. Bernandez Pandian Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur Distr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 2nd respondent herein to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner in O.Mu.No.51981/2015 U2 dated 07.01.2016 on merits in accordance with law after considering all the documents available on records within a stipulated period.) 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. It comes to be known that as against the order dated 04.03.2011, passed by the 3rd respondent/Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thanjavur, the petitioner had projected an appeal dated 15.12.2015 before the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, who in turn transferred it to the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, being the competent authority and as on date, the said appeal is pending. 5. Considering the limited relief sought for by th...
Karuppaiah Vs. P.R. Rajesh Kumar and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Sections 439(2) read with 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to cancel the anticipatory bail order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1068 of 2015, dated 13.05.2015 on the file of the Vacation Sessions Court, Trichy.) This petition has been filed praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the first respondent vide order dated 13.05.2015 made in Crl.M.P.No.1068 of 2015 by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner and first respondent are neighbours. The first respondent introduced one Muthukumar (A.1) as Satheshkumar and he is the owner of the land to an extent of 2 acres situated at Tamalaroobam Village in Trichy within the Corporation limit and A.1 informed him that he is going to sell the said property. Believing the same, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2 crores to the first respondent and A.1 as advance. After receiving the amount, both the accused have eva...
K. Marimuthu Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Cor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
(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 21.06.2016.) 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »