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.
D. Issac Vs. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the Petitioner's representation, dated 22.07.2016 seeking payment of assured amount of Rs.2,60,000/- within interest as per Policy No.323648532.) 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 2. Admittedly, the Petitioner had addressed a representation, dated 22.07.2016 to the First Respondent/Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office, Chennai-2, seeking payment of assured amount of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest as per Policy No.323648532. The said representation is pending as on date. In fact, the petitioner had claimed the assured sum of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest from the First Respondent. 3. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's representation, dated 22...
P. Rajasimman Vs. The Superintendent of Police- Virudhunagar District ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in connection with the closure report preferred by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner's complaint dated 27.01.2016 and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register a case / FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 27.01.2016.) 1. This application has been filed seeking to quash the closure report filed by the second respondent in connection with the complaint of the petitioner dated 27.01.2016 and to register a case based on the said complaint. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint of the petitioner had been closed by the respondent by adopting an illogical and unwarranted method; before the Court it has been stated that enquiry has been conducted and closed; when the Court verified the grounds for cl...
R. Renuga Devi Vs. R. Elangovan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempts Court Act,1971 to call the respondent for his wilful disobedience of the order dated 22.09.2014 made in W.P.No.15799 of 2014.) 1. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Learned Government Advocate produced a copy of the proceedings dated 29.08.2016 in compliance of the orders passed by this Court. 3. In view of the order dated 29.08.2016, nothing survives for adjudication. 4. The Contempt Petition is closed with the above observation....
Sri Ponnaiyah Ramajayam, Institute of Sciece and Technology, (Print Un ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Bar Council of India to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2015 and conduct an inspection to the petitioner law college at Arasanoor Village, Sivagangai District forthwith and consequently direct the respondent to grant approval for starting three years L.L.B. Degree course in the petitioner law school situated at Arasanoor Village, Sivagangai District, Tamil Nadu.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The petitioner submitted a representation on 21.12.2015 requesting the Bar Council of India to conduct inspection for the purpose of granting approval for starting three years L.L.B. Degree course. Since the said representation was not considered by the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that inspite of giving a representation wayback 21.12.2015, the Statutor...
R. Krishnasamy Vs. K. Dhanalakshmi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Madurai in M.C.No.19 of 2015 dated 06.04.2016 and set aside the same.) 1. A husband dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance granted to his wife and son in M.C.No.19 of 2015, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai has directed this revision. 2. It is not in dispute that the marital bondage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent, which came into existence on 16.05.2010 continues even now. The couples were blessed with one son, he is second respondent. Due to matrimonial dispute, now the spouses are living separately. 3. In the circumstances, the first respondent, in M.C.No.19 of 2015 sought for maintenance to herself and her son. The learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai considering the evidence and the financial capacity of both sides directed him to pay Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- ...
K. Mohamed Sajid Vs. All India Council for Technical Education, rep.by ...
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 first respondent to take action against the third respondent for collecting capitation fees from the petitioner for pursuing his B.E.(Mechanical Engineering) for the academic year 2009-2010 and consequently, to direct the third respondent to refund a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- collected from the petitioner as capitation fees.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to direct the third respondent to refund a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- collected from him for giving admission. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, during the last session, the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent agreed to refund a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- to the petitioner. The Learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed to receive the said amount in full and final settlement. 3. When the Writ Petition was taken up for consideration today, learned Counsel for the petitioner submi...
K. Ganesan Vs. The District Collector, Collectoate, and Another
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 second respondent to grant patta in the petitioner name for the property situated in S.No.462/18, Malakottai Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, on the basis of petitioner's patta transfer application dated 28.02.2011.) 1. The petitioner wanted the Tahsildar to mutate the entry with regard to patta on the strength of the Will. Since representation for mutation was not taken up by the second respondent, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The petitioner is no where connected with the property bearing S.No.462/18, Malakottai Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. According to him, he supported one Ramakkal, who succeeded the property owned by her husband Thirumalainayakar. Thereafter, the said Ramakkal executed a Will on 29.04.2010 in favour of the petitioner and she died. It was only on the strength of the Will, the petitioner wanted t...
N. Palaniyappan Vs. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Devakottai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representations, dated 04.04.2016 and 04.08.2016 to survey and fix the boundaries of the house land measuring to an extent of 19.32 Cents in Old Survey No.133/1, New Survey No.211/3 Natham situate at Thanichavoorani Village, Sirumarudhur Ulkadai, Sirumarudhur Group, Devakkottai, Karaikudi District, within a stipulated time.) 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondent. 2. Admittedly, the Petitioner's representations, dated 04.04.2016 and 04.08.2016 seeking to survey and fix the boundaries of the house land measuring an extent of 19.32 Cents in Old Survey No.133/1, New Survey No.211/3 Natham situated at Thanichavoorani Village, Sirumarudhur Ulkadai, Sirumarudhur Group, Devakkottai, Karaikudi, Sivagangai Di...
Muthuramu Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai District and Others
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 his representation dated 06.06.2016 submitted in person within a time frame as fixed by this Court following the due process of law besides directing the respondents 2 to 4 not to take any coercive steps of eviction and demolition of his bunk shop situated in 2-3/26, Thayamangalam, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner; the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. No Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, his representation, dated 06.06.2016, addressed to the First Respondent in person requesting him to issue necessary directions to Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to evict and dem...
V. Kulandaisamy Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: The Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1994 in O.S.No.294 of 1991 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.) 1. The Appeal Suit is filed by the 2nd defendant against the decree and judgment dated 31.08.1994 passed in O.S.No.294 of 1991 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. 2. The respondents 1 and 2, as the plaintiffs, have filed a Suit in O.S.No.294 of 1991, for recovery of an amount of Rs.54,086/-, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, from the defendants, stating that the 2nd plaintiff namely, Lakshmi Match Factory, a partnership Firm, manufacturing and selling of safety matches at Kovilpatti. On 13.06.1990, the 2nd plaintiff entrusted to deliver 500 bundles of safety matches, through the 1st defendant, namely, Venkateswara Lorry Transport, to M/s. Commercial Enterprises at Howrah and a lorry receipt No.2287, dated 13.06.2000, has been given for accepting the same and the consignments were loaded ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »