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.
A. Maliki Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-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 3rd Respondent to accept the Release Deed, dated 22.03.2016, presented by the Petitioner for registration and act on the document according to the provisions of Law. 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. 4. According to the Petitioner, his father one Abdullah (brother of his father) lived together, as Joint family, and hence, all the properties including the property in question was maintained by his father. In fact, the said Abdullah had given the said property to his father Abdul Majeed by way of 'Hiba', on 18.01.1975. His father had accepted the same and the property was in his possession and enjoyment, till his demise. In fact, the revenue records were also changed in the name of his father Abdul Majeed. 5. In comes to be known that t...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.966 of 2010, dated 10th Day of March, 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ I Additional District Court, Madurai.) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai and the same resulted in filing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. The respondents filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.966 of 2010, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ I Additional District Court, Madurai, claiming a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 in a road accident involving the vehicle owned by the appellant. 4. The accident took place on 22.01.2010. The deceased was riding his motor cycle from Melur to Thirupathur main road. The bus owned by the ap...
Jeevanesan Vs. The Commissioner, Tirumangalam Municipality, and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2011.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that nothing survives for consideration in this Writ Petition, in view of the subsequent events. 2. The Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs....
S. Kannan and Others Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (K ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the petitioners retirement benefits including Gratuity, Earned Leave Wages, Pension arrears for 4 months and Dearness allowance payable to him along with reasonable rate of interest as per the settlement dated 13.04.2015 U/S 12(3) of ID Act w.e.f.01.09.13.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 petitioner Rs. 3,73,800/- towards Gratuity together with 18% interest per annum within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. 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 petitioner Rs. 4,86,795/- towards Gratuity Rs. 47,071/- towards Leave Salary and also arrears of wages for the period from 01.09.13 to 31.03.15 payable pursuant t...
M. Rengasamy Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Cor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(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 entire terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including gratuity 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 Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent 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, passe...
V. Selvakumari Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome Hig ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned charge memo made in Memorandum No.939/A1/2016 dated 15.02.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo dated 15.02.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tirunelveli District. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned order, would submit that if there is any error on the part of the registering authority while discharging quasi-judicial function under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, The Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules framed thereunder, the same cannot be questioned, by initiating any departmental proceedings, for the simple reason that the said order is always appealable to higher authority more particularly, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by whic...
A.P. Sujitha Kumari Vs. The District Superintendent of Police, Kanyaku ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioners representation dated 28.06.2016 with in a time frame as fixed by this Honble Court besides directing the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner as well as not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property No.1, Vinayakar Street, Krishnan Kovil, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, considering the Civil Nature of the matter and thus render justice.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2016 with in a time frame as fixed by this Honble Court besides directing the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner as well as not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property No.1, Vinayakar Street, Krishnan Kovil, Nagercoil, Kany...
M/s. Maharani Textiles Vs. The Chairman (IRDA), Office of the IRDA, an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to amend the policy in respect of conditions No.3, 6 (a) and 14 of the General conditions of policy and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to disburse the theft amount Rs.7 lacs in respect of policy No.SSO-6410 to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner has taken a Policy from the second respondent. The petitioner lost money while it was taken from his shop to the residence. The claim made by the petitioner was rejected by the Insurance Company. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.11019 of 2009 directing the secondrespondent to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on the strength of the policy, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 2. The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition directing the first respondent to amend the policy in respect of condition Nos.3, 6(a) and 14 of the General Conditions of Policy and consequently, direct ...
T. Karuppusamy and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(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 the retirement benefits with interest to the petitioner in view of the representation dated 19.07.2016.) 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 submit...
M. Thamilarasan and Others Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Tran ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(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 Rs.5,10,098/- towards gratuity and Rs.36,229/- towards leave salary together with 18% interest per annum and further directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay him interest amount towards the delayed payment of pension Commutation amount Rs.2,49,221/- for the period from 01.05.13 to 24.10.13 at the rate of 18% p.a. within a time frame as may be fixed by this Honble 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 requ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »