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. 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...
A. Durai and Others Vs. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transpo ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle payment of Gratuity amount, Earned Leave, Medical Leave, Payment of Commuted Value of Pension and otherretiral benefits payable to the petitioner with reasonable rate of interest within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble 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...
Rosammal Memorial Minority Vs. S. Kalaichelvan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for disobedience of the order dated 04.02.2016 in W.P.No.4232 of 2016. (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records from the respondent relating to the proceedings dated 24.06.2016 bearing Reference No.TNTEU/R/CC/2016/913 asking the petitioner once again to obtain recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as per "New National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to process the petitioner's application dated 08.08.2014, grant affiliation for the B.Ed. Course to the petitioner-institution based on the recognition already granted by NCTE on 03.03.2014, pursuant to the judgment of this Court, dated 13.12.2013 in Writ Appeal No.1138 of 2012.) Commo...
T.A.S. Rajkapoor Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Boar ...
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 Second Respondent to issue No Objection Certificate for the Petitioner's son viz., R.Ahamed Haroon Sathaki for his marriage to be held on 04.09.2016 at Samayapuram, Trichy District, within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. No Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. It comes to be known that the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition in directing the Second Respondent to issue No Objection Certificate for his son R.Ahamed Haroon Sathaki's marriage to be held on 04.09.2016 at Samayapuram, Trichy District, within the time to be stipulated by this Court. 5. As on date, the Petitioner had addressed a representation to the Second Respondent on 08.08.2016, in the subject mat...
K. Muruganand Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transpor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(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 Gratuity, Leave Salary and Pension Commutation with 18% interest per annum to the petitioner within a stipulated period.) 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 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Additional Advoca...
V. Manoharan and Others Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Stat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(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 Gratuity, Pension Commutation and Leave Salary with 18% interest per annum to the petitioner within a stipulated period.) 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 2015, is extracted hereunder: "The learned Additional Advoca...
A.S. Lakshmi Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Depart ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the first respondent i.e. the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai to pass appropriate orders on the petitioners representation dated 07.12.2015 regarding sanction of compounding interest for the belated payment of DCRG under Rule 45(A) of the Pension Rules for the period from 01.04.2007 to 10.06.2009 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this court.) 1. The petitioner, aged about 67 years, seeks for a direction to the first respondent for passing appropriate orders on his representation, dated 07.12.2015, regarding sanction of certain retiral benefits. 2.Mr.Visvalingam, learned counsel, briefly narrating the case of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner, while serving as Selection Grade Assistant in the Taluk Office, Tuticorin District, on reaching the age of superannuation, was allowed to retire from service on ...
Chellakumar Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Kanyakum ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(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 cut and remove the overhanging trees causing aerial trespass to the petitioner property in Ry.No.619/18A of Karunkal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, within the stipulated time, as fixed 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 one behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. According to the Petitioner, the Pentecostal Mission Church of Karunkal had purchased the land in R.S.No.619/18A, Karunkal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, admeasuring 52.5 Cents, by means of a registered Sale Deed, dated 07.07.1985. Latter, the compound wall of the Church was constructed in the year 1991 and also Church building was completed during the year 1993, after according sanction by the Authorities, following the requisite formalities. 5. It comes to be k...
M/s. Sivam Mines, Dindigul District and Others Vs. The District Regist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned Letter No.6809/Aa1/2015, dated 07.12.2015, issued by the 1st Respondent and the consequential order Na.Ka.No.21(A)/2015, dated 15.06.2016, issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to release the Document No.55/2015 pending on the file of the 2nd Respondent and to repay the sum of Rs.3,7770/- collected from the Petitioner for condoning the delay.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries (MMA.1) Department, vide G.O. (D)No.170, dated 03.11.2014, had transferred the Mining Lease from his individual name to the Petitioner / Firm. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, the District Collector, Dindigul...
Vedam Vs. Arulanandam @ Arul and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2008 made in A.S.No.19 of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2007 made in O.S.No.71 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif, Uthamapalayam.) 1. The defendant, who lost the legal battle before the Courts below has come forward with this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2008 made in A.S.No.19 of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2007 made in O.S.No.71 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif, Uthamapalayam. 2. The respondents, as plaintiffs, filed the suit for declaration, declaring that the portion of suit property marked as ABHG is a lane and for injunction restraining the defendant, her men and her agents from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and also for mandatory injunction, to remove the iron sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »