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.
S. Badmanaban and Others Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporatio ...
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, Commuted Value of Pension and 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. 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.9,20,648/- towards Gratuity, Rs.5,66,267/- towards Leave Salary Rs.1,44,990/- towards encashment of Leave on personal Affairs Rs.50,000/- towards Social Security Scheme benefit and Rs.4,360/- towards refundable deposits together with 18% interest per annum along with interest amount towards the delay period from 30.04.2016 to 21.11.16 in paying EPF Employees Contribution amount Rs.2,86,363/- at the ra...
Ponnumani and Others Vs. The Executive Officer, Vilathurai Panchayat, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on merits and according to law on petitioners representation dated 11.7.2016.) 1. The petitioner herein has come to this Court, seeking the issuance of a mandamus, directing the respondent to consider his representation, dated 11.7.2016, wherein, he has made a request to the said Authority to assess his residential place for house-tax. 2. First of all, the petitioner is not able to explain before this Court whether the house/property legally belongs to him. No document is produced therefor to substantiate that the property in question is owned by the petitioner. 3. Hence, this Court is not able to issue any direction to the respondent for considering the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs....
A. Murugan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and Anot ...
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 2nd respondent not to interfere in Civil Matters to dispose of petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2016.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere into the Civil Matters on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who would submit that no such representation is pending with the 2nd respondent. 3. In view of the above submission, the petitioner is directed to present a copy of the representation dated 06.04.2016 to the 2nd respondent in person and on receipt of such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.04.2016 and pass appropriate orders thereon on merits and in accordan...
Ansari and Another Vs. Syed Nizar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2008 made in A.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.06.2006 made in O.S.No.67 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram.) 1. The appellants/Defendants 1 and 2, who lost the legal battle before both the Courts below have come forward with this Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.2008 made in A.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.06.2006 made in O.S.No. 67 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on record. 3. The first respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 7/20 share in the property stating that the property has b...
S. Rajeswari Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District, 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 respondents herein to issue patta in favour of the petitioner herein by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.09.2010 in accordance with law.) 1. The petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent requesting him to issue a patta for 9 cents of her land in S.No.14/2 in T.Kallupatti Village. Since follow up action was not taken by the respondents, the petitioner has come up with the Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents. 3. The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27.09.2010 on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The petitioner is directed to forward a copy of the representation along wi...
Tvl.Kay Cee Plasto Pack, Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to Pre Revision Notice in TIN 33325761473/2009-10 dated 23.03.2015 received by the petitioner on 27.03.2015 and quash the same and to direct to consider the objection filed by the Petitioner on 07.04.2015 received by the 2nd Respondent 09.04.2015 to accord a personal hearing before proceeding further the same.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given a letter, dated 19.08.2016, to the Registry, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Permission is granted. 3. Recording the said letter and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs....
M. Rukumani Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secreta ...
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 respondents to grant parole for the period of 20 days from 24.08.2016 to 13.09.2016 to the petitioner's husband, namely, Karuppaiah @ Muthu, who is a life convict confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai to make arrangements and to participate his daughter's marriage based upon the Rule 20(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982 forthwith.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant parole for the period of 20 days from 24.08.2016 to 13.09.2016 to the petitioner's husband, namely, Karuppaiah @ Muthu, who is a life convict confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai to make arrangements and to participate his daughter's marriage based upon the Rule 20(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules 1982 forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the l...
A. Ravichandran Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2016 within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner herein seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders on his representation, dated 23.06.2016, within the time-frame that may be fixed by this Court. 2. Mr.M.Murugan, learned Govt. Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on 02.05.2007 and his service was regularised vide G.O(3D)No.23, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (P3) Department, dated 31.07.2015 from the date of his initial appointment dated 04.05.2007. Having completed Bhavani Sagar Training on 08.10.2015, of course, with some delay in completing the said Training due to adm...
S.M. Raja Vs. The Director, (Vigilance and Anti corruption) and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,to direct the second respondent to register a case on the basis of petitioner's complaint dated 17.06.2016.) 1. S.M. Raja, the petitioner herein seeks a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent viz., Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Theni District, to register a case on the basis of his complaint dated 17.06.2016, investigate and file the final report. 2. The Raja presented his complaint on 17.06.2016 to the first respondent viz., Director General of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Chennai. As there was no further action, Raja invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ganesan, who was formally associated with the running of a Temple called Muthumariamman Temple situate in Andipatti As he has greased the palms of R.D.O., VAO, Thasildar, Collector, Judges, thus, it requires thorough ...
The Administrator, MKN Madarsha Trusts Vs. The Director of Collegiate ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: in W.P(MD)No.4227 of 2015 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents to approve the appointment of Dr. J. Moohammed Ali as Assistant Professor (Commerce) in Khadir Mohideen College, Adirampattinam, Thanjavur with effect from 24.07.2012 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.4230 of 2015 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents to approve the appointment of Dr. J.Sugumaran as Assistant Professor ((Zoology) in Khadir Mohideen College, Adirampattinam, Thanjavur with effect from 12.8.2012 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits.) Common Order 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to not press these writ petitions and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »