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.
Retinamoni Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and Others
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 to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 1.7.2016 and 15.7.2016 and issue license for running the Piggery Farm in the Petitioner's property in R.S.No.107/4, situated at Veeyanoor Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.) 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 had submitted a petition/application, dated 1.7.2016 addressed to the Respondents No.1 to 3 for seeking license to run the piggery farm. After receipt of the Petition/application, the Respondents had not given any reply and kept the same without any disposal or progress. Therefore, the Petitioner was forced to project another petition in the subject-matter in issue on 15.7.2016. Even though the second representa...
Govindammal Vs. The District Collector, Trichy 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 Mandamus directing the second respondent to grant the remaining fund to the Petitioner to finish the construction under the Green House Scheme based on the representation of the Petitioner, dated 11.2.2016.) 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 Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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....
R.K. Venkatraman Vs. Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S, The Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts Court Act,1971 to call upon the contemnors/ respondents for having wilfully and wantonly disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.12516 of 2015 dated 22.07.2015.) T. Raja. J, 1. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order under contempt has been complied with. In support of the same, he also produced the proceedings of the third respondent made in Na.Ka.FB5/5794/2015 dated 11.07.2016. A copy thereof has also been given to the petitioner. 2. Since the order under contempt has been complied with, this Contempt Petition is closed....
A. Mahendran Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District and Oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(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 release the Petitioner's Tractor(Agriculture) bearing Registration No.TN 29 S 1746 seized by the third respondent on 26.3.2016.) 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. The Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Second Respondent/The Revenue Divisional officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District to release his Tractor(Agriculture), bearing Registration No.TN 29 S 1746 seized by the Third Respondent/The Sub-Inspector of Police, Elayirampannai Police Station, Virudhunagar District on 26.3.2016 at about evening 6.30 p.m and the vehicle was seized for transporting sand and produced before the Second Respondent/The Revenue Divisional officer...
Bassalis Vs. Sajan Singh Chawan The District Collector, Kanyakumari
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Respondent for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble Court made in WP (MD) No.18020 of 2014 dated 10/11/2014.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the respondent that a sum of Rs.92,500/- (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) was paid in favour of the petitioner. To that effect, it is quite evident that the Government had issued G.O.(D).No.393, Revenue [LR.I(2)] Department, dated 13.08.2015, inter alia stating as under: 6. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District is directed to take necessary action to disburse the amount of Rs.92,500/- (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) directly to Tmt.Bassalis, W/o. (Late) Rayappan, Aralvoimozhi Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. and in fact, the petitioner had acknowledged the same through a receipt. 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner was paid with a sum of Rs.92,500/- (...
Chinnammal Vs. The Commissioner, City Corporation, Tiruchirappalli Cit ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to alter the name of the petitioner's husband as Chokkan and the name of the petitioner's father-in-law as Rengan and the age of the petitioner's husband as 65 years in the death certificate issued by the 2nd respondent dated 27.02.2016 and to direct the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh death certificate for the death of the petitioner's husband who died on 21.06.2014 as per the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2016.) 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 respondent. 4. According to the petitioner, her marriage with her husband Chokkan took place in the year 1983 and ever since the year 1983, she was residing with her husband at the petitioned address. In fact her husband was employed in Thiakesar Aalai, Manapparai, a textile unit of Meenakshi Mi...
Raja Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the onerous condition imposed in the impugned order dated 24.06.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.1679 of 2016 in C.C.No.19 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District.) 1. This petition has been filed praying to set aside the condition imposed on the petitioner in the order dated 24.06.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.1679 of 2016 in C.C.No.19 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.40 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. The petitioner herein has moved a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District in Cr.M.P.No.1679 of 2016 for bail and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District, after hearing both sides, enlarged the petitioner on bai...
Sarasu Vs. Ravi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.07.2005 made in I.A.No.649 of 2004 in O.S.No.852 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.) 1. Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 21.07.2005, made in I.A.No.649 of 2004 in O.S.No.852 of 2000 on the file of II-Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.852 of 2000 against the petitioner/defendant for specific performance before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that she entered in to an agreement with the petitioner/defendant on 09.03.2000, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner/defendant agreed to sell his property for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and the respondent/plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.95,000/- on the said date and the balance sale consideration should be paid within a period of seven months. On receipt of such balance sale considera...
Karuppayee Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second and third respondents to survey the Petitioner's land in S.No.131/2H and 131/3C, measuring an extent of 0.13 ares, Patta No.90 in Valanadu Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District on the Petitioner's petition, dated 13.6.2016.) 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, his petition/representation, dated 13.6.2016 is pending on the file of the Third Respondent/The Taluk Surveyor, Taluk Office, Marungapuri, Tiruchi District. The request of the Petitioner is to survey his land by the Second and Third Respondents, for which, he had remitted a sum of Rs.160/-.The Petitioner is a widow, possessing land in S.No.131/2H and 131/3C, measuring an extent of 0.13 ares, Patta No.90 in Valanadu Village,...
P. Sheela and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Mayiladumbarai Polic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in STC.No.631 of 2015 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatty, Theni District.) 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.6 of 2015 has been registered under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatty, Theni District, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate in S.T.C.No.631 of 2015. 3. When the matte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »