Chennai Madurai Court August 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.
Minor M. Shiekmohammed and Others Vs. The District Registrar, Karur Di ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from registering the sale deeds executed relating to the properties in S.No.1757 measuring about 18 acres 25 cents, 1764 measuring about 2 acres 14 cents, S.No.1765 A measuring about 12 acres 88 cents, 1765 B measuring about 16 acres 42 cents, 1769 measuring about 2 acres 14 cents situated at Koodalur lower part village, Aravakuirchi Taluk, Karur District without conducting enquiry as contemplated under Section 34 of Registration Act 1908 based on the telegraphic representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2011.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement indicating that the petitioner is withdrawing the Writ Petition. 2. In view of the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
Karuthan Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai District Collect ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 13.04.2016 on the file of the First Respondent, within a stipulated time.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. No Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent to dispose of the Appeal, dated 13.04.2016 lying on the file of the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai. 5. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's Appeal, dated 13.04.2016, is pending on the file of the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai, at this stage, this Court, in the interest of Justice and fair play, directs the First Responden...
Kalil Rahman and Others Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.105 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai and quash the same.) 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. Acase in Crime No.4 of 2014 has been registered under Section 498(A) IPC, Section 4 of D.P.Act and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 2002 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, Thiruvadanai, which was taken cognizance by the Court in C.C.No...
M. Sundaramoorthy and Others Vs. Minor Iswaryalakshmi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer (Crl.R.C.(MD) No.253 of 2014): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.42 of 2010, dated 13.03.2014, on the file of the learned Family Court of Madurai. (Crl.R.C.(MD) No.288 of 2016): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order passed by the Family Court, Madurai in M.C.No.42 of 2010, dated 13.03.2014, and set aside the same.) Common Order: 1. As these two revisions are directed as against the very same order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the factual matrix and legal issues are intermixed, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.253 of 2014 has been filed by a father as against his daughter in granting her monthly maintenance at Rs.3,000/- in M.C.No.42 of 2010, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai. 3. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.288 of 2014 has been filed by the wife as against ...
P. Selvapushpam Vs. and Another The Kovilpatti Municipality, rep.throu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein not to make any obstruction to the petitioner's right of ingress and egress to the public road from the premises in Door No.717, Main Road, Kovilpatti.) 1. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Kovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti, requesting them not to put up the toilet near to his shop. Since follow up action was not taken by the respondent, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition. 2. This Court passed an order of interim injunction on 01.07.2011. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 29.06.2011 on merits and as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The petitioner is directed to forward a c...
M. Balasubramani Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Presiding Offi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to take the application of the Petitioner, dated 08.01.2016 on its file and to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate or the Respondent. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. No Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner, although he is having properties mentioned in the partition suit in O.S.No.38 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned District Judge, Pattukottai, he is suffering for money to meet his day-to-day expenses for himself and his family, for which, he is to depend on his near friends and relatives. He has no other source of income except the aforesaid properties. 5. In fact, he has filed a maintenance petition (The Revenue D...
Thirunavukkarasu and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.287 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.287 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai. 2. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant, the 1st respondent has registered a case against these petitioners in Crime No.271 of 2012 on 18.07.2012 for offences under Sections 147, 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 1998 and subsequently, it was altered into Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPWH Act, 1998. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are tenants of the 2nd respondent and they were asked to vacate the house without following the due process of law; the petitioners gave a representation ...
Sindhu Rao and Another Vs. Raveendran and Other
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempts Court Act,1971 to call the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the orders dated 11.09.2014 made in W.P.No.9834 of 2014.) 1. When Cont.P(md).No.1302 of 2015 was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that a sum of Rs.4,95,395/- has already been transferred to the account of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Cont.P(md).No.1273 of 2015 submitted that a direction should be given to the respondents or to the concerned Bank to pay 50% of the amount to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Cont.P(md).No.1302 of 2015 submitted that after paying a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the mother of the deceased, the remaining amount would be apportioned among the petitioners. In short, the petitioner in Cont.P(md).No.1302 of 2015 has agreed to pay the proportionate share to the petitioner in Cont....
P. Sudhagar Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, Na ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to release the Lorry bearing Registration No.TDD-1357 seized by the Second Respondent on 28.07.2016, to the Petitioner.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. According to the Petitioner, his Lorry bearing registration No.TDD-1357 was seized by the Second Respondent on 28.07.2016 on the allegation that the vehicle was used to transport five bags of rice (each contains 50 Kgs), 10 Kgs of Toor Dhal and 10 Kgs of Moong Dhal. After seizure of the vehicle, the Second Respondent produced the vehicle before the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 4. It appears that after seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner made a detail representation on 29.07.2016 addressed to the Firs...
T. Thenmohan and Another Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to conduct the fair enquiry and remove the petitioner's name from the history sheet on the file of the respondent No.4 forthwith.) 1. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition to direct the third respondent to remove his name from the history sheet maintained by the Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. 2. When the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instruction, submitted that the petitioner's name has already been removed from the history sheet pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District. 3. In view of the subsequent events relating to the removal of the name of the petitioner from the history sheet, nothing survives for adjudication. 4. The Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »