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.
K.AL. Swaminathan Vs. The District Registrar (Administration), Dindigu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation, dated 11.04.2016 and pass sorders within a stipulated time, as prescribed by this Court.) 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, he had submitted a detailed representation on 09.05.2016, addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, seeking for cancellation of patta, if there is any patta in respect of Seelapadi Village Survey Nos.463/1 and 447/3. Furthermore, the Petitioner, on 11.04.2016, addressed a communication to the Second Respondent / Joint Sub Registrar, Dindigul, wherein, the Petitioner had sought for not to entertain the documents presented for registration of the scheduled mentioned property, especially, by means of affecting the...
B. Jayabharathi Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore Nagapattinam hi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to disburse 50% of the petitioner's share in the amount of Rs.16,12,903/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs twelve thousand nine hundred and three only) lying with him in accordance with the Hindu Law of succession as per the representation of the petitioner dated 10.05.2016.) 1. For Respondents 1 and 2, Mr. S. Kumar, Learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice. 2. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. No Counter Affidavit is filed. 3. According to the Petitioner, her Husband K.Baskar expired on 12.10.2014 in the course of his employment at Muscat, Sultanate of Oman while working in M/s.Galfar Engineering and Contracting SAOG, P.B.No.533, P.C.100. She being the wife of the deceased and her husband has Mother by name, Vembu and her Husband Kaliyaperumal, the 1st Respondent/District Collector had informed the Pet...
K. Soundarya Vs. The Superintendent of Police Madurai District and Ano ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent No.1 register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 31.07.2006 and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner approaches this Court with the prayer for a direction to the first respondent to register the case on her complaint, dated 31.07.2006, and proceed with the same, as per law within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that necessary direction shall be given to the second respondent police on the complaint given by the petitioner herein. 3. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to verify the contents in the compliant dated 31.07.2006 given by the petitioner herein and to proceed further in the matter, if any cognizable offence is made out and if it is a fit case to be investigated, the second respondent is directed to register a cas...
Anthoni Pappu Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2016 seeking the 1st Respondent not to take any action under Act 14 of 1982 against the petitioner's husband on the request the respondents 2 and 3.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2016 not to take any action under Act 14 of 1982 against the petitioner's husband on the request the respondents 2 and 3. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that already detention order was passed by the District Collector and the same was also served on the petitioner on 20.08.2016 itself. Therefore, the remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the Court dealing with HCP matters. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the pet...
Sree Senbagham Spintex Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Ind ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to execute registered sale deed in respect of the property at Plot No.11, Measuring 0.91 acres situated at Industrial Estate, Theni, in favour of the Petitioner's concern namely M/s.Sree Senbagham Spintex, by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 22.01.2015.) 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, the Respondents / SIDCO Corporation is established by the Government of Tamil Nadu to develop the Small Scale Industries in the State and the Corporation has its own Bye-laws and Regulations. Accordingly, various lands in the State were identified by the Respondents and sanctioned the same to the interested parties, at the consolidated rate. It is to be noted that the lands sanctioned by th...
Palanichamy Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the impugned notice, dated 29.08.2016 in Na.Ka.No.1795/2014-1/A3, issued by the 2nd Respondent, which was pasted in the Petitioner's house and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the Petitioner, their father had constructed a house in Door No.41, Mariamman Koil Street, Cumbum and they were residing there from time immemorial, for the past 61 years. Their father had also availed water tap connection to the house and the same stands in their father's name till date. They along with his brothers lived jointly in the aforesaid house, till the demise of their father. After that, the Petitioner along with his brother Kandasamy's family are residing in the aforesaid house. 3. The stand of the Petitioner is that his brother Kandasamy's son got appointed in a private Firm in Chennai and by last week of Ju...
Kalammal Vs. The Tahsildar,Tahsildar Office, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to survey and fixed the boundary stones of petitioner's land in survey No.317/61 with an extent of 2.92% cents situated at Sivarakottai Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 10.08.2016, within a time frame stipulated by this Court. 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, he made an application for survey of his land before the Respondent's Office and paid necessary survey fee. He had produced all documents before the Respondent / Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. Once again, he made an application before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, on 23.06.2016. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, had directed the Petition...
Ganapathi and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to Crime No.92 of 2016 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent police and to 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. A case in Crime No.92 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 336 and 506(2) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. 3. The allegations in the complaint is that while conducting Kabadi Sports Meet in connection with a Temple Festival, there was a group clash between the petitioners and the defacto complainant; it is alleged that the petitioners abused the defacto complain...
Vincent Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilanc ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 30.05.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2016 in Spl.C.C.No.57 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli and set aside the same.) 1. As these two petitions are connected on factual matrix and legal issues, they are tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the Court of Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli in Spl.C.C.No.57 of 2014, A1/Vincent/petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14889 of 2016 and A2/Sikinthar Mohideen/petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15234 of 2016 are being prosecuted for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. In this case, charges were framed. Recording of prosecution evidence is going on. So far 9 prosecution witnesses were examined. 4. On 17.02.2016, P.W.5, an A...
S. Sam Sundar Singh Vs. The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in Crime No.129 of 2007, dated 27.07.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur.) 1. The accused in Crime No.129 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Rathapuram, Tirunelveli District directed this revision as against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, dated 27.07.2010, passed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., directing fresh investigation. 2. On 26.08.2007, at about 5 p.m., Kakkum Perumal Nadar, in his land situate in Singara Thope in Rathapuram found an unidentified charred body. On the same day, at about 7 p.m. at the Rathapuram Police Station, he reported this to the Inspector of Police. The Inspector of Police registered a case of suspicious death in Crime No.129 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C 3. The Inspector commenced his investigation. Collected materials. On 01.10.2009, he altered the Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »