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.
Thangiah Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Another
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 consider the Petitioner's representation dated 29.6.2016 as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.332, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 17.11.1993 and further to direct them to renew the Nainarkulam fishing lease in favour of the Petitioner for a period of five years.) 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 stand of the Petitioner is that in Tirunelveli, there is a tank called Nainarkulam Tank situated at Tirunelveli Town and it measures an extent of 446.46 acres and has the capacity of filling 18.30 cubic feet water and the water for the said tank comes from Tirunelveli basin. In fact, the Tirunelveli basin receives water from the Papanasam Dam. As a matter of fact, the said tank belongs t...
S. Sethuraman and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (M ...
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 respondents to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Provident Fund, Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension, Leave Salary together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.) 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 rea...
M. Murugesan Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
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 consider the representation dated 18.7.2016 and consequently to survey the Petitioner's land by fixing the boundary situated in Silapadi Revenue Village, Dindigul District in S.No.366/1 measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 23 Cents and S.No.358/2A1, having an extent of 3 Acres and 16 Cents and in Chettinayackenpatti Revenue Village in S.No.587/2A1A1 having an extent of 19 cents and in S.No.676 having an extent of 1 acre and 40 cents.) 1. Heard the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 4. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 3. According to the Petitioner, he has an agricultural land at Silapadi Revenue Village, Dindigul District, bearing S.No.366/1 measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 23 Cents and S.No.358/2A1, measuring an extent of 3 Acres and 16 Cents, totally 4 acres and 33 cents of land. He is also in posse...
Mohamed Rafeek Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to release the TVS XL Super two-wheeler bearing registration No.TN-45-BY-6724 seized on 02.11.2015 by the 2nd respondent, to the petitioner and thus render justice.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of TVS XL Super two-wheeler bearing registration No.TN-45-BY-6724. On 02.11.2015, when he went to purchase grocery items at Trichy, the 2nd respondent / Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, Crime Investigation Department, Trichy, seized his vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle was used to transport 2 bags of rice (each containing 50 Kgs.) and after seizure of the vehicle, a case in Cr.No.331 of 2015 was registered by the 2nd respondent for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential ...
G. Deivaprakasam Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram and Anothe ...
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 Respondents for handing over the possession of TASMAC Shop to the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation dated 24.05.2016.) 1. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Mani Vs. The District Collector, Karur District and Another
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 2nd respondent to take appropriate and necessary actions against the stock yard permit holder for halting the lorries in petitioner's land in unauthorized manner based on his representation to the 1st respondent dated 23.03.2015 within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. Heard the Learned Government Advocate for the first and second respondents. 2. According to the petitioner, S.F.No.201 stands in the name of his father and after his demise, he is cultivating the lands and in fact, the Public Works Department is running a sand quarry near his lands and thereafter, stockyard is also there. As a matter of fact, the lorries were halted in queue in his land and one after another, the sand is loaded on the lorries and after loading, they moved towards the destination. 3. The Stand of the petitioner is that in order to run a stock yard, it is mandatory, as ...
K. Ramasamy and Others Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transpor ...
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 1st Respondent to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.5,59,610/- towards Gratuity and Rs.2,33,887/- towards Leave Salary and also arrears of wages for the period from 01.09.13 to 30.06.15 payable pursuant new wage settlement together with 18% interest per annum and further directing the respondents to pay the arrears of pension from June, 2015 to the petitioner by modifying the pension as per the new wage settlement and to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,45,706/- towards the Pension commutation amount together with 18% interest per annum.) 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 Cou...
T. Bala Sudhakar and Another Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Forest Unifo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the experience of the petitioners as Technical Assistant for three years in the department and give preference to the petitioners while recruiting personnel for the posts call for in respondents advertisement No.1/2014 dated 22.12.2014.) 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners seek permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petitions. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition are closed....
K. Chellakannu and Another Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writs of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.04.2016 and to pay the surrender leave encash amount to the petitioners.) Common Order: 1. 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. 2. The petitioners have come before this Court seeking to encash their surrender leave salary by considering their representations, dated 21.04.2016. 3. A perusal of the affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions would show that nowhere the petitioners have mentioned the period for which they claim proceeds against surrender of leave. Further, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.13063 of 2016 and W.P.(MD).No.13064 of 2016, have come to this Court, after a period of five years and three years, respectively, from their retirement. In other words, both the petitioners made applicati...
A. Noormohammed Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board ...
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 Respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders under Section 48 and 49 of Wakf Act, 1995, by considering the application preferred by the petitioner dated 19.03.2015 within the period that may be 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 to 3. 4. According to the petitioner, his representation dated 19.03.2015 was addressed to the first respondent/Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai, whereby and whereunder, a request was made to take necessary action against the erstwhile Pallivasal office bearers, based on audit report in Na.Ka.No.81/A2/2014, dated 19.02.2014. It appears that the said representation is pending. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2015 addressed to the first r...