Chennai Court March 2016 Judgments
S.S. Rajagopal Vs. S.K. Appal Raja and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Appellate Court to dispose of the Appeals in C.A.Nos.139 and 140 of 2014 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.) Common Order 1. These petitions have been filed to direct the Appellate Court to dispose of the Appeals in C.A.Nos.139 and 140 of 2014 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. 2. It is seen that the 1st respondent was convicted in C.C.Nos.863 of 2011 and 2839 of 2010 respectively by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent filed C.A.Nos.139 and 140 of 2014, which are pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that the cases are of the year 2011 and 2010 respectively, this Court directs the learned District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunaga...
Tag this Judgment!N. Manoharan and Another Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.853/2011/E1 dated 18.01.2016 quash the same and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petitionfor a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.853/2011/E1 dated 18.01.2016 quash the same. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that first of all, the reference dated 31.01.2014 is no more in existence and has already been dismissed for default, against which, a revision was already filed before the Department and that has been remanded. 4. Anyway, the petitioner will also state that the order dated 23.12.2015, was...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Abdul Rahman Vs. Mohamed Syed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decretal order of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore dated 17.07.2014 made in I.A.No.102 of 2014 in O.S.No.72 of 2013.) 1. The defendant in the original suit O.S.No.72/2013 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, is the petitioner in the present civil revision petition. The above said suit was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein for: (1) a declaration that the sale deed dated 02.07.2009 executed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit properties and registered as Document No.P.No.7/2575/2009 in Book No.1 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Parangipettai as null and void; (2) a direction against the petitioner herein/defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit properties to the respondent/plaintiff; (3) a further direction directing the petitioner herein/defendant to pay past mesne profits for three years prio...
Tag this Judgment!C. Periasamy and Another Vs. State Represented by, The Inspector Gener ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3537/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 1 to 4th respondents police to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb against the serious and sustained threat caused by the accused persons on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2016. W.P.(MD) No.5260 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere in civil dispute and not to harass the petitioner.) Common Order 1. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3537 of 2016 has been filed to direct the 1 to 4th respondent police to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb against the serious and sustained threat caused by the accused persons on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2016. 2. W.P.(MD) No.5260 of 2016 has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere in civil...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd., Tuticorin and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 11.03.2016 passed in Unnumbered Cr.M.P. of 2016 in Cr.M.P.No.592 of 2016 in DCB Crime No.34 of 2015 and direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin to allow the above petition.) 1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 11.03.2016 passed in Unnumbered Cr.M.P. of 2016 in Cr.M.P.No.592 of 2016 in DCB Crime No.34 of 2015 and direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin to allow the above petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. It appears that the petitioner herein filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin to implead himself as a party in Cr.M.P.No.592 of 2016 in DCB Crime No.34 of 2015. The said petition was returned by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin noting as follows: Correct provision of law to be stated. Challen...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmigu Virudhagiriswarar Temple, Rep. By its Executive Officer, Viru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner/Temple has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 1st Respondent/Commissioner, Municipality Office, Virudhachalam to demolish the construction unauthorisedly carried out by the 4th Respondent in the temple land in Survey No.124/1, Anna Street, Pudupet, Virudhachalam, measuring an extent of 4400 square feet. Further, the Petitioner has sought an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to withdraw the electricity, water and sewerage connection, if any given to the 4th Respondent, in respect of the property. Also, the Petitioner has sought a relief of Interim Injunction being passed against the 4th Respondent from putting up any further construction in the temple land in survey number mentioned supra, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. 2. According to the Petitioner/Temple, the father of the 4th Respondent took 1375 sq. ft. of land for rent from the temple and that the 4th Re...
Tag this Judgment!Punjai Puliyampatti Municipality Shopping Complex Lessee Welfare Assoc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18.02.2016 made in W.P.No.39436 of 2015. M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant/Association has filed the present intra-Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 18.02.2016 in W.P.No.39436 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order on 18.02.2016 in W.P.No.39436 of 2015 (filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner/Association) at paragraph 13 had observed the following: 13. .... Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of A.Sathar vs. District Collector, Coimbatore and Anr., reported in AIR 1998 Madras 217, where the Hon'ble Division Bench pointed out that the extension granted earlier by the Panchayat would not mean that appellant therein is entitled to continue in possession of the premises in question for ever by paying ridiculously low rent and extension of lease to the said appellant is against the int...
Tag this Judgment!Akash Mohamed Khan Vs. The Secretary to the Government Home Prohibitio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in SC No.84/2015 dated 11.9.2015 against the petitioner's son detenu herein now confined in Central Prison Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Faheem Ahmadkhan, son of Akash Mohamed Khan, aged about 29 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, Faheem Ahmadkhan, aged 29 years, son of Akash Mohamed Khan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in SC No.84/2015 dated 11.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, ...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumammal Vs. The Director General of Police, Santhome, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(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 in the proceedings pertaining in C.C.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondent No.2, to investigate the complaint dated 25.03.2013 given by the petitioner as against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to file a report and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6. Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for quashing the criminal proceedings and only the provisions of Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, can be invoked but that has not been done. 2. Hence, without ex...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian @ Ricksaw Pandi and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Thooth ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to transfer the case in P.R.C.No.20 of 15 in Crime No.26 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District to some other competent Court at Madurai District.) 1. This petition has been filed to transfer the case in P.R.C.No.20 of 15 in Crime No.26 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District to some other competent Court at Madurai District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. 3. The respondent police have filed a counter, wherein in Paragraph Nos.2 to 4, it is stated as follows: 2. I respectfully submitted that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Gurumoorthy a case was registered in Crime No.26 of 2011 for the alleged offence u/s. 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC dated 31.03.2011. The brief fact of the case is that there was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »