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.
Sivakumar Vs. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the 3rd respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.109/2016/E1 dated 27.05.2016 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal consequently directing the Respondents to open the tender bid submitted by the Petitioner, dated 11.03.2016, in respect of Tamil Nadu Urban Road Infrastructure Project (TURIP) 2016-2017 to be implemented in 3rd Respondent Municipality and proceed with the same in accordance with law.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is a registered contractor of the Third Respondent / Municipality. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 11.03.2016, the Third Respondent / Commissioner, Keelakarai Municipality, Ramanathapuram District, floated E-Tender, under the Scheme called, '...
T. Vellaikkannu and Others Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.140 of 2016 dated 19.05.2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same as against the petitioners.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.140 of 2016 dated 19.05.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that after completing the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the concerned jurisdictional Court. 3. In view of the above submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed....
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. A cursory perusal of the averments of the affidavit of the writ petition at paragraph No.4, latently and patently indicates that in adangal column, it is inadvertently mentioned that as 'Thirumarainathar 5th Mandagapadi Trustee Muthuraman @ Manickam Chetty-1, T.Lakshmi-2' .As a matter of fact, these two persons mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit of the writ petition have not been arrayed as parties to the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner is directed to implead these two persons as respondents to the writ petition. In this regard, the petitioner is granted one week's time. 3. The Registry is directed to list the matter on 12.07.2016....
K. Sudhakar Vs. The State Information Commissioner, Teynampet and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider the Petitioner's Appeal Petition dated 17.8.2015 in accordance with law and pass orders in providing informations under Right to Information Act within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, his appeal dated 17.08.2015 is pending on the file of the first respondent till date without any progress or disposal. It is also his case that he preferred a reminder appeal petition before the third respondent to issue proper and specific answers under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and specifically insisted the second respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 6(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that since there was no reply from the third respondent fo...
Chandrasekar @ Kannan and Others Vs. State represented by The Inspecto ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for records pertaining to the FIR in Crime Nos.77 and 78 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal) Common Order: 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.77 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 427, 324 and 506(ii) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioner in Crl. O.P.(MD) 10703 of 2016. 2.1. As a counter blast, the case in Crime No.78 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC by the 1st respondent against against the petitioners in Crl. O.P.(MD) 10704 of 2016. 3. When these matt...
S. Sajini Begam Vs. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Periyakulam Branc ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to sanction the educational loan of Rs.3,81,200/- to the Petitioner's son namely, Ajith Rahman, for pursuing his B.E. Mechanical Engineering at Pavai Engineering College, Namakkal, within a stipulated time framed fixed by this Court.) 1. It comes to be known that the Petitioner's mother has filed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondent / Canara Bank, Periyakulam Branch, Theni District, to sanction the Educational Loan of Rs.3,81,200/-, to her son viz., Ajith Rahman, for pursuing his B.E. Mechanical Engineering at Pavai Engineering College, Namakkal, within a stipulated time to be determined by this Court. 2. The stand of the Petitioner is that her son, Ajit Rahman, had secured 399 marks out of 500 in the 10th examination and secured 788 marks in the 12th Standard examination that ...
Minor K. Priyadarshini Vs. The Director of Elementary Education, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner, minor Priyadarshini, in view of the injury to petitioner's right eye on 01.03.2012.) 1. This Writ Petition is at the instance of a minor, who lost her right eye, on account of the inhuman act of beating with a stick by her teacher, seventh respondent herein. The minor has come up with this Writ Petition through her mother for a direction to the respondents to pay her compensation. BACKGROUND FACTS: 2. The minor petitioner is the daughter of a driver. The minor was enrolled as a student in Rathish English Matric School owned by the sixth respondent. The seventh respondent was employed as a teacher in the said Institution. The minor was studying in LKG. 3. The mother of the minor petitioner, in her affidavit filed in support of this Wr...
Valaiyakka Vs. Anitha Agnihotri, The Secretary, Government of India, M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein for his willful disobedience to implement the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP.(MD)No. 9989 of 2015 dated 19.06.2015 and punish respondent Nos.1 and 2.) 1. Earlier, on 19.06.2015, this Court, in W.P.(MD).No.9989 of 2015, filed by the petitioner against the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice, New Delhi and four others, had directed the First and Second Respondents to pass appropriate orders in tune with the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Safai Karamchari Andolen and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 2014 (3) CTC at page No.177, granting relief, on the basis of the representations of the petitioner, dated 19.09.2014 and 01.04.2015, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the petiti...
Rajendran Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyaku ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the proceeding No.A3/4186/2014 as early as possible within a time frame stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, an extent of land measuring 11 acre in New Sy.No.254/8 in Neiyoor Village is belonged to Arulmigu Muthalamman Sudalaimada Swamy and the said land is standing in patta No.6724. As a matter of fact, the revenue records viz., A Register is reflecting the deity's name in patta No.6724 for Sy.No.254/8. 4. The real grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent had changed patta No.6724 in his name, without any basis. As such, on 18.09.2014, one of his relatives viz., Rajagopal S/o.Rajasundaram filed a petition before the 1st respondent to remove...
Jeba Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1st respondent and instruct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 09.02.2016 and investigate the case in accordance with law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent and instruct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 09.02.2016 and investigate the case in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that petition enquiry is pending in this case, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the course of enq...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »