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. Gabriel Johnson Vs. The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi Educa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: in W.P(MD)No.5346 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records of the impugned order of the 1st respondent in O.Mu.No.2856/A3/2015 dated 18.5.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as Junior Assistant in the 2nd respondent school from date of appointment i.e. 17.07.13 and pay all monetary and service benefits within the time fixed by this Court. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.6047 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records of the impugned order of the 1st respondent in O.Mu.No.3763/A1/2014 dated 19.09.14 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as Junior Assistant in the 2nd respondent school from the date appointment i.e. 02.05.14 and pay all...
Rajesh Vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District and Others
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 2nd Respondent to pass orders on the Petitioner's appeal, dated 26.05.2011 in the light of the report submitted by the 3rd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/19751/2011, dated .09.2012, 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 Respondents. 2. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Second Respondent to pass orders on his Appeal, dated 26.05.2011 in the light of the report submitted by the Third Respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/19751/2011, undated 09/2012, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court. 3. It comes to be known that the Third Respondent had conducted a detailed enquiry and by means of his proceedings during September, 2012, had submi...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
T. Raja, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier when the petitioner filed W.P.No.4570 of 2006 for alternative employment, this Court, by an order dated 31.07.2006, directed the respondents not to assign seat work to the petitioner, due to his mental illness. Pursuant to the orders of this court, the petitioner was posted as Assistant in the Divisional Excise Office, Theni, which involves collection of money, however, by impugned order dated 10.08.2016, the petitioner has been transferred and posted at the office of the Special Tahsildar, SIBCOT Unit 3, Bodinayakkanur at Theni, which is having a full time desk work. 2. In view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner, the learned Govt. Advocate is directed to get specific instruction whether the petitioner could be accommodated in a post which is having no desk work. 3. Post the matter on 06.09.2016....
M. Sundaramoorthy and Another Vs. Minor Iswaryalakshmi rep.by her moth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in M.C.No. 42 of 2010, dated 13.03.2014, on the file of the learned Family Court of Madurai. Prayer: (Crl.R.C.(MD) No.288 of 2014): Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order passed by the Family Court, Madurai in M.C.No.42 of 2010, dated 13.03.2014, and set aside the same.) 1. As these two revisions are directed as against the very same order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the factual matrix and legal issues are intermixed, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.253 of 2014 has been filed by a father as against his daughter in granting her monthly maintenance at Rs.3,000/- in M.C.No.42 of 2010, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai. 3. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.288 of 2014 has been filed by the wife as against her husband in the said Court havin...
N. Kothandapani Vs. The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to communicate the result of the test conducted on the sample of Siddha Medicine collected at the time of his inspection dated 10.06.2009.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement indicating that the petitioner is withdrawing the Writ Petition. 2. In view of the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
M/s Selvin Jeyakumar Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN 33376163947/2012-13 dated 16.06.2016 and to quash the same as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and against the judgment report in (2015) 82 VST 457 in the case of Tvl. Infiniti Wholesale Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Chennai, and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording a opportunity of being heard to the petitioner by considering the reply dated 11.04.2016 filed by the petitioner and the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai in Circular No.54/2014 Ref.No.D3/34875/2014 dated 14.11.2014 within such time as may be directed by this Court.) 1. M/s Selvin Jeyakumar, who is engaged in the business of executing works contract for the various departments of State Government,...
R. Thirumalai, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Vs. The Director G ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector of Police without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings in C.No.B1/12441/2005 P.R.No.25/B1/2005, dated 18.11.2005 and promote him as Inspector of Police and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector of Police without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings in C.No.B1/12441/2005 P.R.No.25/B1/2005, dated 18.11.2005 and promote him as Inspector of Police and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. The brief facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner entered in service as Sub Inspector of Police by direct recruitm...
S. Surendran Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct the enquiry proceeding in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.1508/1425/A2-2 on the file of the 3rd respondent by appointing a neutral enquiry officer without the influence of the 3rd respondent, based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2016. 1. The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Elephant Mahout on 11.11.2005, on a daily wage of Rs. 100/- per day from the date of appointment. On his representation made on 17.07.2006 to the 3rd respondent/Joint Commissioner cum Executive Officer, Samayapuram, Trichy, he was brought under monthly wages from daily wages, by order dated 13.10.2009 of the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, since the Temple Elephant due to its old age, was surrendered to the Forest Authorities, he had been deputed to various other works in the Temple. 2. In the above background, learned counsel for the petitioner woul...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Aaiyuram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2.The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 23.08.2016, whereby, the order of transfer dated 03.08.2016 transferring him from the Office of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District to the Office of the District Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District, has been cancelled. While the petitioner was transferred by order dated 03.08.2016, it is not known why the said order has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 23.08.2016. 3. This Court also finds no reason why his previous transfer order dated 03.08.2016 has been cancelled. It is well-settled legal position that no transfer order requires to be a speaking order. However, when such orders are cancelled, reasons are to be assigned. When there is no such reason given, the same is liable to be stayed for the ti...
V. Kannan Vs. Kasthuri and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 11.03.2016, made in Cr.M.P.No.15 of 2016 in M.C.No.34 of 2014, on the file of the Family Court, Dindugul and set aside the same.) 1. The fight is between a C.R.P.F. Jawan / revision petitioner and his wife / first respondent. However, there is no fight between the Jawan and his daughter / second respondent. 2. The respondents have sought for maintenance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in M.C.No.34 of 2014. Originally, it was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindugul and subsequently, it was transferred to the Family Court, Dindugul. 3. On 20.01.2015, the revision petitioner was set ex parte and the respondents were awarded Rs.4,000/- per month, from the date of filing of the maintenance petition. 4. To set aside the said ex parte order, the revision petitioner has filed Cr.M.P.No.15 of 2016, before the Trial Court. However, it was dismi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »