Chennai Court April 2016 Judgments
S. Umapathy rep. by his power Agent P. Ragupathy Vs. V. Ezhilarasi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. The appellant filed a suit in O.S. No. 4922 of 2010 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. An application in I.A.No. 14346 of 2015 was filed by the defendants seeking to receive the additional documents on their behalf. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. On revision, the learned single Judge was pleased to set aside the order passed by the trial Court and thus allowed the application filed with a direction to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order so passed. The appellant filed a review in review application No. 54 of 2016 inter alia contending that there is an error on the face of the record. By a speaking order, the review application was dismissed. Challenging the said order, an appeal is sought to be filed by the appellant in C.M.A. SR. No. 30678 of 2016 under Section 100A, 104 r/w 107 of the CPC. The papers were returned by the Registry with the following query: 1. "As the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Kulandaisamy Vs. Selvaraju and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to dispose of O.S.No.96 of 2012, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul at an early date.) 1. This revision is preferred for an early disposal of O.S.No.96 of 2012, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials on record. 3. Perusal of the records would reveal that suit in O.S.No.96 of 2012 has been adjourned half a dozen occasions, for examination of witnesses and hence, the suit is pending for a long time, without any progress. 4. In view of the above, the Additional District Munsif, Dindigul is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.96 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Chandraleka Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to conclude the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.20 of 2016 dated 31.01.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent police within a time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 2nd respondent to conclude the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.20 of 2016 dated 31.01.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent police. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the investigation in Crime No.20 of 2016 has been completed and a final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, which is yet to be taken on file. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!Palaniyayee and Others Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent police to complete the investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.144 of 2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent within a stipulated time. Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to investigate the case and to file a final report in Crime Nos.181, 178, 175, 172 and 168 of 2015 within a time stipulated by this Court. Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to file a final report in Crime No.114 of 2016 dated 14.03.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 2nd respondent police to complete the investigation and to file a final report in Crime No.144 of 2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent. 2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that if some more time is granted ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajendran Vs. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
S.S. Sundar, J. 1. The above Writ Petitions have been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the 6th respondent in Resolution Nos.1060 to 1077 and Resolution No.1081, dated 29.05.2015 and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to issue a fresh auction-cum-tender, for leasing out the proposed shops, in front of the Municipal Bus stand, Thirumangalam and consequently, to direct the 4th respondent to conduct a detailed investigation, on the illegal contract of lease issued by the 6th respondent, in favour of respondents 7 to 22. 2. The petitioner, who once served as Vice-Chairman of Thirumangalam Municipality, Madurai District and who is interested in taking the lease of 18 shops belonged to the Municipality, which are constructed in front of the Municipal Bus-stand, Thirumangalam, has filed the above Writ Petition. The case of the petitioner is that without conducting public auction and without even publishing auction notice...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. C.S. Traders, rep. by its Proprietor C. Ramesh, Puducherry Vs. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the record of the respondent in tender ref.No.BS6/10739/2016 dated 15.04.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to redefine the tender condition in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act for the scrutiny of this Court before publishing the same.) 1. In both these writ petitions, the petitioner questions the incorporation of certain tender conditions as tailor-made, arbitrary and violative of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act (hereinafter called as The Act) and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules (hereinafter called as The Rules). The learned senior counsel appearing for the respective writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent adduced common arguments in both the cases. Therefore, with their consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal a...
Tag this Judgment!V. Pitchaimuthu Vs. V. Mahalingam and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.163 of 2015 in O.S.No.496 of 2009, dated 10.10.2015, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.) 1. The Petitioner/Third party has moved I.A.No.163 of 2015 in O.S.No.469 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam seeking he to be impleaded as a party therein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials on record. 3. In dismissing such application, Court below has reasoned that it was the contention of the fourth defendant that an action between him and 6th Petitioner had ended in his favour,such decree having been confirmed also in appeal. Thogh it is contended by the Petitioner that there against a Second Appeal stands preferred and is yet to be numbered,we find that the Court below has dismissed the impleading petition finding that no proof of pendency of Second Appea...
Tag this Judgment!S. Syed Kamarudheen Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Chennai and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st to 6th respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2015 and further direct the 1st to 6th respondents to withhold the license / permission of 7th respondent till the violations of rules are corrected.) S.S. Sundar, J. 1. This writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited person, for a Mandamus, to direct respondents 1 to 6, to consider his representation, dated 27.05.2015 and further to direct respondents 1 to 6, to withhold the license / permission granted to the 7th respondent, till the violation of rules are corrected. 2. It is to be noted that this petitioner had earlier filed a petition to implead himself as a party in an earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7553 of 2015 and after dismissal of the said Writ Petition as withdrawn, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Sigappi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to file a final report by arresting the accused in crime No.40 of 2015 dated 3.02.2015 and proceed with the same as per law within the time stipulated by this Honourable court.) 1. This petition has been filedto direct the 2nd respondent to file a final report by arresting the accused in crime No.40 of 2015 dated 3.02.2015 and proceed with the same as per law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State, who would submit that the investigation in Crime No.40 of 2015 has been completed and the same has been closed as mistake of fact on 28.02.2016. A copy of the closure report is furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. 3. Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!Sahaya Westy Silvester Vs. The Secretary to Government, Union of India ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispatch the corpse of the petitioner's husband xavier ignasi holding passport No.L6435470 expired on 05.02.2016 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arbia to India at Kovalam, Kanyakumari District.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband died at Saudi Arbia on 05.02.2016 by sea accident. His body is lying over there. All his efforts to bring back the body went in vain. Hence, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition. 2. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the fourth respondent is the competent authority and she has to take necessary steps immediately to bring back the body. 3. In view of the pathetic situation of the petitioner, either the petitioner or her authorised representative shall coordinate with the fourth respondent immediately to bring back the body and t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »