Chennai Court November 2015 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.
R.K. Steels, Tuticorin rep. by its partner S. Rajagopal Vs. The Appell ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in Na.ka./A1/632/2013 dated 04.10.2013 and quash the same and consequently, directing the first respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. in W.P(MD)No.20331 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in Na.ka./A1/633/2013 dated 04.10.2013 and quash the same and consequently, directing the first respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law.) Common Order: 1. Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the orders of the first respondent, dated 04.10.2013, reje...
Selvi Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanyakumari District and Oth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to recognize the affidavit sworn in by the petitioner in Annexure-K based on the report of the second respondent dated 04.06.2015 in Na.Ka.No.Aa1/3236/2015 and return the original affidavit sworn in Annexure-K forthwith, without further delay.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to recognize the affidavit sworn by her in Annexure-K based on the report of the second respondent dated 04.06.2015 and return the original affidavit, forthwith. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the second respondent has forwarded the Annexure-K sworn in by the petitioner to the first respondent through her proceedings dated 04.06.2015, till this date, the first respondent has not recognised such affidavit and returned the original affidavit to the petitioner, inspite of the fact that such affidavit is necessary for getting a pa...
The Inspector General of Registration, Pattinapakkam, Chennai and Anot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: W.A.(MD)No.998 of 2015: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 31.07.2015, made in W.P.(MD)No.5484 of 2015. W.A.(MD)No.998 of 2015: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order, dated 31.07.2015, made in W.P.(MD)No.5485 of 2015.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The Inspector General of Registration of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Sub-Registrar of Tallakulam, Madurai, have come up with the above writ appeals challenging a common order passed by a learned Judge in two writ petitions filed by the respondent herein, seeking a direction to the appellants to register and return a sale deed and a gift deed presented for registration. 2. We have heard Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants and Mr.J.Barathan, the respondent, appearing in person. 3. Under a sale deed executed by one Mr.V.Balasubramanian on 15.12.2014, claiming to be the power agent of the owners Mrs.A.Balamani an...
V. Murugan Vs. The Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu General and Distribution ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider the representation dated 23.11.2015, for genuine claim of the petitioner.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty. No Costs....
V. Subramanian Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Principal Secr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to call for the records to the common order dated 21.09.2010 made in W.P(MD)No.11971 of 2010.) Common Judgment: V. Ramasubramanian, J. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has made an endorsement seeking permission to withdraw these writ appeals. Therefore, these writ appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs....
C.K. Rajappa and Others Vs. M. Ganesan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 25.03.2015 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 6375 of 2014 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.) 1. The first respondent herein has filed a Complaint under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Court in Crl.M.P. No. 6375 of 2014 praying to direct the second respondent herein to register a first information report against the revision petitioners herein for the offence under Section 417, 485, 487, 468 and 471 of IPC. The said application was allowed by the Court below on 25.03.2015 directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police to depute an Inspector of Police to register a first information report, carry out investigation thereof and to file a final report before the Court below. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.03.2015 of the Court below, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioners. 2. The fa...
Dr. P. Chandramohan Vs. The Madurai Kamaraj University, Rep. by the Re ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Art History with the respondent University in Ref.V/Appt./AP/MKU/2014, dated 07.07.2014 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Art History within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Dr.P.Chandramohan, who was working in Madurai Kamaraj University as Guest Lecturer in the Department of Art History, Aesthetics and Fine Arts, has challenged the impugned order of appointment of the fourth respondent Mr.K.A.Babu to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Arts History with the respondent university in Ref.No.V/Appt./AP/MKU/2014...
S. Jeyan Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a copy of the impugned order passed by the first respondent on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a copy of the order made by the first respondent based on his representation dated 21.05.2015. 2. Through the said representation, dated 21.05.2015, the petitioner has sought for the issuance of the order passed by the District Collector to take possession of the subject matter of property from the petitioner and hand over the same to the Authorized Officer of the Bank with proper acknowledgment. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, after notice, the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent supplied the order passed by the first respondent dated 23.04.2015 to the learned Counsel appearin...
Sri Ambal Mills Ltd. Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
(Prayer:Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in O.Mu.12491/2006 B2 dated 20.11.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to assign the land measuring 14 cents comprised in S.No.698/2 of Samalapuram Village, Palladam Taluk as per the proceedings of the first respondent No.R.Dis. 61048/74 B5 dated 07.04.1975 in favour of the petitioner.) 1. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's mill was established during 1960. When the mill was started the petitioner company encroached an extent of 14 cents of land comprised in S.No.698/2 of Samalapuram Village, Palladam Taluk and constructed compound wall of mills, rest place for workers and time office of the mills. The petitioner company had been requesting the respondents herein to assign the land, in favo...
V. Vijayakumari Vs. The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd Respondent herein ending in his order dated 18.07.2001 made in G.O.Ms.No.(D) No.180 Industries (MMC 1) Department confirming the order of the 2nd Respondent herein dated 03.02.2000 and the order of the 1st Respondent dated 06.08.1999 and quash the G.O.Ms.No.(D) No.180 dated 18.07.2001.) 1. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner has submitted that she is a young widow residing in the above address and she has been granted lease and quarrying permission to quarry ordinary stones in S.F.No.999/2 of Anthiyur Village for an extent of 0.20.0 hec. during the period 1998-99 she has deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the Security Deposit for the above said lease and she has been granted lease for an agreement lease executed by the first respondent herein. She is a semi literate having a little knowledge in writing an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »