Chennai Court February 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.
P. Manoharan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.2709 of 2016 dated 08.02.2016.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Material on record discloses that while noticing the difference of opinion between two groups, vide proceeding in Na.Ka.A1/2662/2015, dated 16.03.2015, the Tahsildar, Virudhunagar, has directed that Arulmigu Karku Vallaiyan Banthi Madasamy Kovil, situated at No.16, Parapatti Street, Virudhunagar Town, be closed, as done in 2013, and that the key of the said temple, be handed over, to him. The said proceeding, dated 16.03.2015, has also been issued, taking note of the difference of opinion, between the two groups, in the Peace Committee Meeting conducted on 07.03.2015 and 12.03.2015 respectively, and also on the basis of the legal opinion, dated 16.02.2015, offered by the learned Government Pleader, District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. 2. Proceeding, dated 16.03.2015, of the Tahsildar, Virudhunagar, has been challenged in W.P(MD)No.4757 of 2015...
S. Manivannan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to undergo Doctoral Programme (Ph.D) on full time basis under All India Council for Technical Education-quality improvement programme (poly) scheme conducted by All India Council for Technical Education in the fourth respondent Institute based on the order of selection issued by the third respondent in Proc.No.F.No.FD(Poly)/ Policy/ 2011-12 dated 19.1.2016 with full salary for the duration of study and consequently direct the respondents 1, 2 and 5 to grant permission to undergo 60 days preparatory work on duty to be commenced before 29.2.2016 and for pre-registration based on the order of Advance Admission to Ph.D. programme issued by the fourth respondent in Ref.NIT/QIP(POLY)/ Ph.D/2015-16 dated 3.2.2016.) 1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come up with the...
Ajith Kumar, Rep. By his father, Sivagangai District and Others Vs. St ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayers in Crl.O.P.(MD)1785/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Sivagangai to accept the surrender of the petitioner in connection with the Crime No.644 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and to consider and pass orders in the bail application on the same day on surrender. Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)1941/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Thoothukudi to consider the petitioner's bail application and dispose of the bail application on the same day, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Thoothukudi in Crime No.25 of 2016 on the file of the respondent. Crl.O.P.(MD)2073/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Tuticorin to accept the surrender of the petitioner and consider the bail application on merits on the da...
K. Srinivasan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Director General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the first and 2nd respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's son K.S.Manoj Kumar, aged about 17 years, and set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren ,J. 1. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, K.S.Manojkumar, aged about 17 years, praying that this Court may be pleaded to direct respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the detenu, along with his friends, had gone to Marina Beach, on 22.8.2014, to celebrate the birth day of his classmate. At about 4.00 p.m. on the said date, the petitioner had received an information that his son had gone missing, while he had gone to the beach and therefore he had approached the second respondent police. Accordingly, the petitioner had met one S.Ramakrishnan, Inspector of Police, D5 Marina Police Station, ...
M/s. Balaji Theatre, Rep. by Managing Partner Vs. The Union Territory ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in passing of the impugned order by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in No.1515/OM/ Revenue/Ent-Tax/2014-15, dated 01.02.2016 and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in passing of the impugned order by the third respondent in his proceedings in No.1515/OM/ Revenue/Ent-Tax/2014-15, dated 01.02.2016 and to quash the same 2. It is the case of the petitioner that they have exhibited films with Tamil title in their theatre and therefore, they are entitled to tax exemption under the Entertainment Tax Act. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner collected the Entertainment Tax from the viewers of 25 movies listed in the impugned order dated 01.02.2016. 4. Mr.M.Govindarajan, learned Government Pleader, Puducherry appearing for the respondents submit...
Nawabzada Khursheed Mohammed Khan (Deceased) and Others Vs. The Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in G.O.Ms.332, Revenue (LD 7 (2)), Department, quash the order dated 27.08.2013, and consequently direct the respondent to give effect to their decision to allot the lands measuring 1.21.4 hectares in S.No.405/8A3, Thoraipakkam village and 1.21.4 hectares and 1.22 cents comprised in Survey Nos.174 and 176 respectively in Karappakkam village as found in their letter dated 14.03.2011 addressed to the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai in lieu of the 2/3rd non evacuee share in the composite property in 82.5 grounds in R.S.No.36/3 to 36/43 in Nungambakkam village, Chennai or demarcate and hand over the 2/3rd non evacuee share of the petitioners in the composite property or pay compensation for the 2/3rd non evacuee share in the composite property as per the prevailing guideline...
S. Palanivel Vs. The Executive Engineer (Distribution/South), Tamilnad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to give electricity connection for the bore well situated in Re.S.F.No.688/9, 64-B, Punjaikalamangalam Village, Erode Taluk.) 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to give electricity connection for the bore well situated in S.F.No.688/9, 64-B, Punjaikalamangalam Village, Erode Taluk. 3. The petitioner's case is that his father N.Samiappa Gounder has filed an application before the respondent seeking agricultural service connection for the well in Re.S.No.759/8, 64-B, Punjaikalamangalam Village. The petitioner's father passed away on 13.05.2001. On 13.11.2010, the 3rd respondent sent a communication stating that the application submitted by the petitioner's father is rea...
R. Senbagam Vs. The Collector of Nagapattinam District and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22.07.2015 made in W.P.No.15901 of 2015.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant/Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 22.07.2015 in W.P.No.15901 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2.The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order on 22.07.2015 in W.P.No.15901 of 2015, at paragraph 7 and 8, had observed the following: 7. It is not in serious dispute that the two sons of the petitioner are well settled in their life, one son being a lawyer and another is employed at abroad and admittedly, the petitioner is residing in the house owned by her younger son. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the order dated 23.04.2010 made in W.P.No.24745 of 2009; however, the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu has brought forth amendment to Rule 5 of the Madras Old Age P...
Popular Front of India, represented by its District President B. Mubar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
(Prayers: WP No. 4853 of 2016:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to accord permission for the procession to be undertaken by the members of the petitioner society from DSK Hospital, through Kangeyam Road, Tirupur to end at KNP Colony CTC Bus Stand, Tirupur and to hold a public meeting thereafter on 17.02.2016 by considering the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 27.01.2016 in the light of the order made by this Court in WP No. 28677 of 2014 dated 07.11.2014 and WP No. 777 of 2016 dated 08.01.2016 within the time that may be stipulated by this Court. WP No. 5532 of 2016:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the third respondent in C.No.54/SDOT/Camp/2016 dated 11.02.2016 in so far as it relates to conditions 1 and 4 are concerned and quash the same a...
D. Desingrajan Vs. The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Puducherr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to forthwith issue the copy of the four permits along with the proceedings granting the said permits issued to the Puducherry Road Transport Corporation to ply on the route Puducherry to Soriyankuppam via Ariyankuppam, Thavalakuppam, Kriumambakkam, Kanniyakoil, Cuddalore and Chavady, and the timings fixed for all the four vehicles running in the said route as prayed for in the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2015, followed by reminders dated 18.11.2015 and 25.11.2015.) 1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith issue the copy of the four permits along with the proceedings granting the said permits issued to the Puducherry Road Transport Corporation to ply on the route Puducherry to Soriyankuppam via Ariyankuppam, Thavalakuppam, Kriumambakkam, Kanniyako...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »