Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
J. Christopher Raj Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the First Respondent relating to the impugned communication bearing R.O.C.No.B.L.No.47/2014/M.H./C. dated 11.02.2015 and to quash the same and direct the First Respondent to demolish the illegal construction made by the Second Respondent in his property in Town.S.Ward No.11, T.S.No.1042, S.F.No.220, Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Ganapathy Sub-Registration District, Coimbatore Registration District having New Door No.82, Old No.253.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records of the First Respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, pertaining to his communication in R.O.C.No.B.L.No.47/2014/M.H./C. dated 11.02.2015 and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Resp...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasubramania Kathiriyasamy and Another Vs. Pappu and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the learned learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Usilampatti to number the unnumbered I.A.No./2016 in I.A.No.354 of 2015 in O.S.No.159 of 2009 and dispose of the same on merits.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed to direct the learned learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Usilampatti to number the unnumbered I.A.No./2016 in I.A.No.354 of 2015 in O.S.No.159 of 2009 and dispose of the same on merits. 2. The revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 3, the respondents 1 to 5 are plaintiffs and the 6th respondent is the 2nd defendant in the suit. 3. The petitioners filed this Civil Revision Petition against the order of return of application dated 22.03.2016 filed by petitioners for stay of ex parte decree. 4. The respondents 1 to 5/ plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.159 of 2009, on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Fathimal Beevi Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(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 relating to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.L1.1241/2015 dated 21.01.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the second respondent to issue patta in respect of the land situated at Survey No.14 T.S.No.36, Block No.9, Ward G to the extent of 0.5 Hectares, in Kattuparamakudi, Revenue village, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District in the light of the decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi in O.S.No.101 of 2005 within a period stipulated by this Court as this Court may deem fit and proper.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.L1.1241/2015 dated 21.01.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the s...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar and Others Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.78 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.78 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. On reading of the complaint, there are prima facie materials for the investigation to progress. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a suit in O.S.No.451 of 2012 has been filed by A.Pari Ahamed (A5) against the defacto complainant and the same is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli. 5. The Investigating Officer is directed to take those factors into consideration and proceed with the investigation in accorda...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Executive Officer Perambalur Sugar Mills Limited Eraiyur Pos ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. While one writ appeal is by the Management, the other writ appeal is by the workman. Both arise out of an order passed by a learned Judge in a writ petition filed by the workman challenging an award of the Labour Court upholding the penalty of dismissal from service. 2. Heard Mr. R. Parthiban, learned counsel for the Management and Mr. NGR Prasad, learned counsel for the workman. 3. Since the ranking of parties in both the writ appeals are interchanged, we shall refer to the parties only by their status, such as workman and Management. 4. The workman was appointed in the Sugar Mill belonging to the Management way back in the year 1978 as Mazdoor. He was appointed as Laboratory Boy by way of selection on 04.7.1984 and was promoted as Lab Assistant on 29.7.1985. 5. His next avenue of promotion was to the post of Cane Assistant. But, he was deprived of promotion, on the ground that the qualification prescribed for the post had been changed. Therefore, the workman...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mani Vs. V. Ganeshkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
1. This revision arises out of dismissal of a complaint filed by the revision petitioner. 2. As between the revision petitioner and the respondent there is a money dispute. In the circumstances, the complainant/revision petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, alleging that on 26.02.2013, at about 11 a.m, while he and his son Senthil Kumar were worshipping in the Pillaiyar Temple situate within the District Court Campus, Coimbatore, the accused/respondent came, abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences, if he demands money back. 3. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his two witnesses and recorded their sworn statement. Perusing the complaint and the said statement, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the place of occurrence is District Court Campus where many people will frequent not examining any one of the public creates doubt. 4. This...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to the Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 19.9.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.989/2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's son namely Chitharth son of Ravi, aged 24 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, Chitharth, aged 24 years, son of Ravi, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in BCDFGISSSV No.989/2015, dated 19.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dang...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balamurugan Vs. The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(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 pertaining to the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent dated 05.01.2016 in assessment No.44966 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to provide appropriate calculation with applying uniform method of assessment and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent dated 05.01.2016 in assessment No.44966 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to provide appropriate calculation with applying uniform method of assessment. 2. Mr.R.Murali learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both sides, this writ petition itself is taken up for hearing. 3. The order impugned in this writ petition is is...
Tag this Judgment!Lingam and Others Vs. State through, The Inspector of Police, Dindigul ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the Principal District Judge Court (PCR), Dindigul to accept the petitioners' surrender and consider the petitioners' bail application.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the Principal District Judge Court (PCR), Dindigul to accept the petitioners' surrender and consider the petitioners' bail application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 354, 494, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act in Crime No.7 of 2016 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioners cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioners have come forward with the said prayer. 3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice for the respondent. 4. Considering the submissions of both sides and also conside...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rengarajan and Others Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
(Prayer: Writ appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 28.10.2014 made in W.P.Nos.10242, 13703, 14435, 14436, 15055 to 15058, 15713, 16945, 16946 and 17360 of 2014.) N. Kirubakaran. J. 1. Writ Appeal Nos.1559 of 2014 to 1562 of 2014 are against the dismissal of the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants challenging the notices of personal hearing issued to them on the proposed punishment of dismissal pursuant in the enquiry conducted by the respondent. 2. Writ Appeal Nos.1563 to 1570 of 2015 are against the order of dismissal passed in the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants seeking Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from proceeding with the departmental enquiry pursuant to the registration of FIR against them. 3. The above said Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the appellants denying the relief sought for by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »