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.
Vadamalai Vs. State Represented by: Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., calling for the records relating to the judgment passed in C.A.No.18 of 2007 dated 27.7.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur vide his judgment dated 7.2.2007 in C.C.No.1046 of 2004 and to set aside the same.) 1. The accused in C.C.No.1046 of 2004, who is also the appellant in C.A.No.18 of 2007, has directed this revision. 2. On 20.1.2003, at about 2.15 a.m., on the Karur-Salem National Highway, near Kumarasamy Engineering College, the revision petitioner came driven the Government Bus TN-57-N-0824 from Madurai towards Salem. While from the opposite side from Salem towards Madurai on the very same road one Subramaniya Raja came driven the Hero Honda Car TN-59-R-8082. 3. In the front seat of the car, PW-1 was seated, in its back seat, PW-1's wife PW-2, their son Alagusundaram and their daughter PW-3 were seated. At about that time, a...
A. Jesu Stalin Vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar No.II, Pattukottai, Thanjav ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st Respondent from registering any document submitted through the 2nd Respondent or his power of attorney in respect of the property in Survey No.11/6A, measuring about 01.06 Acre, situated at Sukkiranpatti Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.) 1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made to that effect, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed....
K. Nagarajan Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai District and Other ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(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 conduct a detailed enquiry to cancel the patta issued in favour of A.Raja in respect of the land in Survey No.171/1, to an extent of 80 Cents bering Patta No.1717, situated at Vayalcherry Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, after affording all the opportunities to the respective parties within the time stipulated by this Court, pursuant to the Petitioner's representation, dated 11.07.2016.) 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 Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 4. According to the Petitioner, the land measuring an extent of 80 Cents in S.No.171/1 and Patta No.1717, situated at Vayalcherry Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, originally belonged to one Alagar S/o.Late.Periyampillai and the same was a self-acquired property ...
S. Uma Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secreta ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: in W.P(MD)No.16078 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2878/A3/20016, dated 13.08.2016 and quash the same.) Prayer: in W.P(MD)No.16079 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 pertaining to the impugned letter of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.024064/E1/2015, dated 22.07.2016, and quash the same in so far as directing to deploy junior most teacher in the Union and direct the 2nd respondent to deploy the junior most teacher in the school in which the students strength decreased.) Common Order 1. Tmt.S.Uma, after being appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Elementary School, Uthani, Thiruvarur District on 11.12.2012 was transferred to Panchayat Union Middle School, N.Kut...
Petchimuthu Vs. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Vir ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., calling for the records relating to the order dated 16.6.2016, passed in Cr.M.P.No.5691 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam and to set aside the same as illegal and entrust the custody of the tailer to the Petitioner and to allow the above revision as prayed for.) 1. The revision Petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of his Property Return Petition in Cr.M.P.No.5691 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, has directed this revision. 2. In connection with Crime No.193 of 2016 registered by the Thalavaipuram Police station, Virudhunagar District, as against one Sethu and five others, for having taken sand without permission, two trailers namely, TN 62 60 2606 and Sumt 160 Feb.2016 have been seized by the Police. 3. The revision petitioner filed Cr.M.P.No.5691 of 2016, stating that before TN 60 2606 could be registered, it was seized by the Police and pu...
Ashokkumar Vs. The Additional Director of Police Prisons and Inspector ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(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 pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent made in No.2775/KiCi2/2012, dated 02.05.2013, and the impugned order of the 1st respondent made in No.43639/ES2/2013, dated 09.05.2013, and quash the same as illegal consequently, to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's claim for the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate ground in their department.) 1. This writ petition is listed today under the caption for withdrawal on the basis of letter of requisition given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the Registry. 2. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed....
C. Gopal Vs. The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(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 relating to the impugned order bearing Na.Ka.No.2968/A5/2015, dated 03.09.2015, passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to revert the petitioner to the post of Primary School Headmaster in Guziliyamparai Block from the post of Middle School Headmaster forthwith.) 1. This writ petition is listed today under the caption for withdrawal on the basis of letter of requisition given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the Registry. 2. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
The Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority, Theni District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 30.10.2014, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-104, in M.V. Appeal No.57 of 2013, and to quash the same.) Common Order: 1. Of these four Writ Petitions, W.P.MD. Nos. 19413 and 20130 of 2014 are filed by two Mini Bus Operators Mr.R.Gopinath and Mr.M.Rajendran, while W.P.MD. Nos.19243 and 19737 of 2014 are by the Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority (in short RTA ), Theni, and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (in short TNSTC ), Dindigul, respectively. Inasmuch as all the above cases, questioning the legality of the Order, dated 30.10.2014, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (in short Tribunal ), Chennai, revolve around common issues and points, they are taken up together for joint disposal with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The mai...
Francis Antony Raj Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Distr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the person or body of the detenue namely Stella Ebira aged 25 years wife of Francis Antony Raj and D/o.Simson Packiaraj before this honble court and set her at liberty.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The second respondent produced the detenue before us. The detenue informed us that she is not an illegal custody. she is living with her parents. 2. In view of the submission made by the detenue, nothing survives for adjudication in this Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. The detenu is set free. 4. The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed with the above observation....
P. Alagumalaikannan Vs. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to ply his auto, to take passengers in and around Rameswaram by considering his representation dated 19.08.2016 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to ply his auto for taking passengers in and around Rameswaram by considering his representation dated 19.08.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 7. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a fisherman having valid identity card issued by the Fishery Authorities and on account of several problems being faced by him, he decided to ply auto be...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »