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.
S. Joseph Arul Rathinam and Another Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil N ...
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 to respondents to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner interview of the representation dated 14.07.2016) 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 submits that he has ...
P. Navaneethan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Tra ...
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 pay the retirement benefits including Provident Fund, Commuted Value of Pension and Leave Salary with interest at the rate of 18% per annum within the time limit that may be fixed 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 ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 t...
Mahalakshmi Vs. S. Anandakumar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer:Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.182 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Trichy and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Madurai.) 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed for withdrawal of the case in H.M.O.P.No.182 of 2016 from the file of the Family Court, Trichy and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Madurai. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records. No representation for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The Marriage between them was solemnized on 08.02.2009. Out of the wedlock, they are blessed with two children. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent is a drunkard and he used to harass her in an inebriated mood at the instigation of his parents and even after police complaint and their advice, he never changed his attitude. On 03.05.2016, she...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
1. Today, the Second Respondent/Contemnor is present before this Court. 2. It is represented on behalf of the Respondents that some time may be granted to comply with the order. Already this Court had granted time till 20.07.2016 to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.17795 of 2014. Further, it was also ordered that if the Second Respondent/The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Lalgudi, Ariyalur District fails to comply with the order passed in the Writ Petition before 20.7.2016, then he/she was directed to appear in person on 21.7.2016 and to explain as to why further action should not be taken in the subject- matter in issue. 3. When the matter is listed today I.e., on 25.7.2016, it is represented on behalf of the Respondents that some more time may be granted to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.17795 of 2014, dated 5.11.2014. Further, it is also represented that as against the order made W.P(MD)No.17795 of 2014, dated 5.11.2014, a...
K. Guruchandran Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings O.Mu.P2-11570-2015 dated 07.10.2015 and the consequential order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in ( Tamil ) 7/2016 dated 20.06.2016 and quash the same as void and illegal and consequentially to direct the 4th respondent to register the sale deed dated 20.06.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, the land in Sy.No.138/1 measuring an extent of 1089 sq.ft in Amaravathi Village, Amaravathi Pudur Group, Karaikudi, Joint II Sub Registrar, Karaikudi Registration District, was owned by one Mr.Mariappan, who purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2014 on the file of the 4th respondent's office. As a matter of fact, he purchased the pr...
G. Thavasumani Vs. The Chairman, State Level Environment Impact Assess ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue Clearance Certificate to the Petitioner for conducting quarry operation in the Petitioner's land in S.F.No.165(P) to an extent of 1.47 Acres in Kalkulam Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner has circulated a letter, dated 22.7.2016 to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
The Janab. O.K.N.Mohammed of Saliqu President of Masjid Baharsha Oliyu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarifide Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned notice issue by the 4th respondent, dated 01.06.2016 in his Na.Ka.g.s.340/Va.Ka.Thanjai/N1.A/2016, the resolution of 2nd respondent dated 18.02.2016 in na.ka.No.5708/15/aa7/Thanjai and the Notification Rc.No.5708/15/B7/TNJ No.VI-3(a)/4/2016 17.03.2016 published in the gazette by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to conduct the election to the Jamath.) 1. None appears for the Petitioner. 2. Heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent, Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 4 and the Learned Counsel for the Fifth Respondent and noticed their contentions. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is the President of the 'Masjid Baharsha Oliyulla Mosque', Mahilambu Thaikkal, Main Road, Rajakiri. As a matter of fact, the Fifth Res...
M/s. Shadirom @ Sons Vs. Shanmugam Traders Pvt Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.81 of 2015 and Cr.M.P.No.592 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin, and set aside the common order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, on 24.03.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.81 of 2015 and Cr.M.P.No.592 of 2016 and consequently order the return of commodities to the petitioner, which were seized in Crime No.34 of 2015 by the 9th respondent.) Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.80 of 2015 and Cr.M.P.No.593 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, and set aside the common order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, on 24.03.2016 in Cr.M.P.No.80 of 2015 and Cr.M.P.No.593 of 2016 and consequently order the return of commodities to the petitioner, which were seized in Crime No.36 of 2015 by the 9th respondent. 1. Though Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.12...
M. Kannan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.Bi4/15508/2013 (e.f.gp4/15508/2013) dated Nil.05.2014 and quash the same as illegal and irrelevant and consequentially directing the respondent to measure the exact extent of the property as per the sale deeds in No.2048, dated 10.08.1945 and No.2926, dated 28.07.1943 and demarcate the boundaries and issue the patta in the name of the legal heirs including the petitioner, as requested by the petitioner in his representation dated 20.12.2012.) 1. This Writ Petition has been challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated Nil.05.2014 issued vide Na.Ka.Bi4/15508/2013 (e.f.gp4/15508/2013) and consequently direct the respondent to measure the exact extent of the property as per the sale deeds in No.2048, dated 10.08.1945 and No.2926, dated 28.07.1943 and demarcate the bo...
S. Gurusamy Nadar Vs. The Sub-Collector, Tuticorin District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
(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 dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner on 14.10.2015 on merits and in accordance with law.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. To avoid an avoidable delay, notice to the Third Respondent is dispensed with, in the interest of justice. 3. According to the Petitioner, his father Shanmuga Nadar expired on 2.3.1976 and thereupon, the properties in question devolved on him and his brother Balagurusamy etc., and they enjoyed the properties jointly till the same was partitioned by means of registered Partition Deed, dated 22.09.2979. Since then, they have been enjoying their respective shares in the property without any hindrance by anybody-else. The Petitioner had also obtained separate patta in respect of his share in the properties in Patta No.13...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »