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.
V. Natarajan Vs. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corp ...
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 consider the petitioner representation dated 07.06.2016 to disburse his monetary benefits which are due to the petitioner after retirement within the time as 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 ready reference, the judgment, dated 12.06.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2...
P. Palaniappan Vs. The Inspector of Police, E.O.W.II, Karur
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the learned Special Judge Under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai to split up the case against A18, namely, M.Gokulan, S/o.Murugaian in C.C.No.83 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judge under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai in Crime No.1 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police and to complete the trial.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the learned Special Judge under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai to split up the case against A18, namely, M.Gokulan, S/o.Murugaian in C.C.No.83 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judge under TNPID Act Cases, Madurai in Crime No.1 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police and to complete the trial. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused and therefor...
Pertitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
1. A1 in C.C.No.23 of 2012, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge for C.B.I.Cases, Madurai, while challenging his conviction and sentence, seeks appeal bail under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. After trial, A1 has been convicted and sentenced as under: ConvictionSentence120-B r/w 409, 420, 467, 468 r/w 471, 477-A I.P.C. and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of P.C.Act, 198810 Years R.I. + Fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 3 Months S.I.409 I.P.C.10 Years R.I. + Fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 3 Months S.I.420 I.P.C.7 Years R.I. + Fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 3 Months S.I.467 I.P.C.10 Years R.I. + Fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 3 Months S.I.468 r/w 471 I.P.C.7 Years R.I. + Fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 3 Months S.I.477-A I.P.C.7 Years R.I. + Fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 3 Months S.I.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of P.C.Act, 19883 Years R.I. + Fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 3 Months S.I.3. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Fine amounts were paid. Since the date of imposition of sentence, namely, 17.05.2016 he is in Central Prison, Ma...
P. Justus Thomas Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, and ...
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 Mandamusdirecting the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2011 for giving permission and recognition to the petitioner's Christian prayer activities in the Shalom Good News Mission Church Building at 51-Q,Church Street,Shalom Nagar,Kattayanvilai,Vettoornimadam Post,Nagercoilsituated in Re-resurvey No.A-1/23-14 of Vadaseri Village (Kaliyankadu)Agasteeswaram Taluk,Kanyakumari District.) 1. The petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent to permit him to undertake Christian prayer in a Church. Since no follow up action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mrs.Srimathy, learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent. 3. The first respondent is...
M/s Aruna Alloy Steels Pvt., Ltd. Vs. Ragavan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer: in Cont P(MD)No.1012 of 2016 :Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts of Court Act, to punish the respondent for the deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.10042 of 2016 dated 07.06.2016. Prayer: in Cont P(MD)No.1013 of 2016 :Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts of Court Act, to punish the respondent for the deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.9823 of 2016 dated 03.06.2016. Prayer: in Cont P(MD)No.1014 of 2016 :Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts of Court Act, to punish the respondent for the deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.10348 of 2016 dated 13.06.2016.) Common Order: 1. It is represented by both sides that the order made in W.P(MD)No.10042 of 2016, dated 07.06.2016, W.P(MD)No.9823 of 2016, dated 03.06.2016, and W.P(MD)No.10348 of 2016, dated 13.06.2016, have been complied with. 2. Recording the above-...
D. Manickam Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli 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 give suitable instruction to the second respondent not to interfere in civil matters pending between the petitioner and the third respondent based on the petitioner complaint dated 16.12.2010.) 1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli District, to give instructions to the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Tirunelveli, not to interfere with the the civil suit said to be pending between the parties. 2. There is no question of issuing a direction of this nature. There is nothing on record to show that the official respondents have interfered in a civil dispute. In case, the petitioner has got a justifiable claim, it is always open to him to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief. 3. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs....
K. Ayyachamy Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) ...
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 Respondent to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including provident Fund, Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension, Leave Salary, Social Security Scheme Arrears,Refund of Institute of Road, Transport Contribution amount together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment.) 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 ...
Rathinam Vs. Satheeswari @ Sathya and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order in M.C.No.15 of 2013 dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District and set aside the same by allowing this revision.) 1. This revision is at the instance of Rathinam, who is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent as against grant of maintenance to them ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam in M.C.No.15 of 2013 on 26.10.2015. 2. It is not in dispute that the first respondent became the wife of a tailor. He is Singapore tailor in Tirupur. It is a matter of common knowledge that now the tailors are also started charging tailoring fees considerably. As there is price increase, everyone increase their fees. So also the tailors. 3. The couples Rathinam/revision petitioner and Satheeswari @ Sathya/ first respondent were blessed with a daughter viz., Kaviyalakshmi. She is a...
Blue Metals Company Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli ...
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 forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners right and their customers right to transport the crusher materials and M Sand from the crushing unit of the petitioner at No.64 Tiruchendur Road, Kumbikulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli district to the place of the purchasers destination situated either within the State of Tamil Nadu or outside the State of Tamil nadu more particularly the neighbouring State of Kerala with the valid bills issued by the petitioner.) 1. The Manager of a Private Limited Company without any authorisation filed this Writ Petition with a strange prayer to restrain the District Collectors of Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari Districts from interfering with their right and that of their customers to transport crusher materials and M Sand from the crushing unit of the petitioner at Door No.64, Tiruchendur Road, Kumbikulam Village,...
V. Krishnaraj and Others Vs. State Express Transport Corporation, (Tam ...
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 all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Gratuity, Social Security Scheme amount Refund of Institute of Road Transport Contribution amount, Commuted value of pension , earned Leave Salary, and Medical 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »