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.
Chockalingam and Another Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Office of t ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2016 and 11.07.2016 to issue patta in the name of the Petitioner, for the lands in S.No.434/21 and S.No.434/31, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 72 cents, situated at Pudhukudiruppu, Shanmuganathapuram Post, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivagangai District within the time stipulated by this Court.) 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 purchased the land in S.Nos..434/21, 431/29 and S.No.434/31, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 72 cents, situated at Pudhukudiruppu, Shanmuganathapuram Post, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivagangai District from one Manickam Chettiar, in the year 1980 by way of registered sale deed, dated 19.3.1980. Su...
Chellappa @ Arunachalam and Others Vs. Hari Narayanan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC., to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.108 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, dated 18.06.1999 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Shencottai, dated 24.04.1996.) 1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.108 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, dated 18.06.1999 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Shencottai, dated 24.04.1996. 2. The plaintiffs, who lost the appeal before the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, have come forward with this second appeal stating that they filed a suit for partition and also for specific performance and also for future profits stating that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of Sudalai Pandaram. Sudalai Pandaram is having a son viz., Arunachala Pandaram. He has two sons viz., Veer...
K. Palaniyandi Vs. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(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 permit the Petitioner to participate and accept the offerings in all the festivals of Sri Arulmighu Ayyanar Temple situated at Parambur, Pudukkottai District, treating him on par with the other community people by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 21.07.2016 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 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 has filed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to permit him to participate and accept the offerings in all the festivals of Sri Arulmighu Ayyanar Temple situated at Parambur, Pudukkottai District, treating him on par with the other community people by considering t...
R. David Vs. The Executive Officer, Kallukootam Town Panchayat, Kanyak ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2016.) 1. Mr.R.David has come forward with the present Writ Petition stating that his mother one Maria Thangam purchased a house including a vacant site in old S.No.6833, New S.No.736/1 in Lekshmipuram Village, Kallukottam Town Panchayat limits, from one Nagamany, Rasammal and Chellappan, by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 19.02.1998 and thereafter, she sold away the afore-mentioned property to the petitioner. While so, since the second respondent herein disturbed the petitioner with respect to wall belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.10 of 2016, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Eraniel and the same is still pending. When that being the factual position, the second respondent, without obtaining plan approval from the first...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
T. Raja, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, dated 06.07.2016, calling upon the Members of the Ward Members of the Village Panchayat to attend a Meeting to find out the views of the Elected Members in respect of the irregularities done by the petitioner is liable to be interfered with by this Court, on the sole ground that as per Section 205 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, (in short 'the Act') there must be seven days clear notice to be given to the Village Panchayat President concerned. In the present case, notice dated 06.07.2016 was served on the petitioner only on 08.07.2016 and a Meeting was fixed on 14.07.2016 without giving seven days clear notice to the petitioner. In other words, the respondents have failed to comply with the Act. 2. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that this Writ Petition has become infructuous, as the Meeting as scheduled was held on the 14.07.2016. 3. Having served the notice only on 08.07.2...
R. Kannan and Another Vs. The District Collector, Pudukottai District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to give electricity service connection to the petitioners house comprised in S.F.No.206/2 of Mattur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District.) Common Order 1. The writ petitions have been filed for providing electricity connection to the petitioners herein. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of, by this common order. 3. The petitioners are said to be in possession and enjoyment of the houses situated in S.F.No.206/2 of Mattur Village, Pudhukottai District. According to the petitioners, they have made individual representation on 27.03.2016 to the third respondent herein seeking electricity service connection. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar circumstances, this Co...
M. Sehu Abubacker Vs. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to survey and fix the boundary of the Petitioner's land in S.No.72/465 B having an extent of 0.01000 sq.meter situated at Thondi Perumal Kovil Sannathi Street, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 29.6.2016 within the time stipulated by this Court. 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 owns a land in S.No.72/465B, measuring an extent of 0.0100 sq.meter situated at Thondi Perumal Kovil Sannathi Street, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the above said land, a house as well as a well is situated. In fact, he is paying the house-tax and the patta also stands in h...
C.A. Babu Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, and Other ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue patta in respect of the property situated in Survey No.32/2A3, Anaiyur Village and Panchayat, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District within the 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 1 to 3. 4. According to the petitioner, his mother M.Mariammal was the original owner of the property, situated in Sy.Nos.33/2B and 33/2A, Anaiyur Village and Panchayat, Sivakasi Taluk, Sivakasi Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. As a matter of fact, on 05.01.1950, she purchased the said property from erstwhile owners by means of document No.14/1950 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Sivakasi. Eversince the date of purchase, she was in possession and enjoyment of the property and changed patta in her name. 5. The stand of the p...
R. Vanaraj Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Bui ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned transfer order dated Nil passed by the second respondent in Pa.AA.No.21/2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to entertain the petitioner's appeal dated 21.05.2016.) 1. Mr.R.Vanaraj, challenges the transfer order of the second respondent on the ground that there is no reason mentioned in the impugned order dated 21.05.2016 for transferring the petitioner from Kanyakumari District to Tuticorin District. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after putting 11 years of unblemished record of service, the petitioner was reverted from Forest Guard to Forest Watcher on account of departmental proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner. While so, without assigning any reason, whatsoever, in the impugned order of transfer, the respondents arb...
Regunath Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Forest Uniformed Services Recrui ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the experience of the petitioner as Technical Assistant for three years in the department and give preference to the petitioner while recruiting personnel for the posts call for in respondents advertisement No.1/2014 dated 22.12.2014.) T. Raja, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »