Chennai Court June 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.
Surya Vs. The Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentto issue Legal Heir Certificate in favour of the Petitioner.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondent. 4. According to the Petitioner, his father Pullani had two wives namely, Karral Ammal, who is the first wife. His father's first wife Karral Ammal had no issues and she died. After the demise of his first wife, the Petitioner's father had married one Mankachi Ammal as second wife and through her the Petitioner and sister Ulaga Madha were born. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he is working in Tamil Nadu Police as Constable and his late father had some property in his native village. The specific stand of the Petitioner is that he and his sister Ulaga Madha are the only legal heirs of his father Pullani. He an...
P. Palanisamy Vs. The Joint Commissioner, H.R and C.E Department, Tric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent herein to consider the petitioner's petition in M.P.No.2 of 2013 on the file of the respondent herein within the stipulated period.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he filed M.P.No.2 of 2013 in O.A.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said M.P.No.2 of 2013 is pending on the file of the respondent without any action. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner's M.P.No.2 of 2013 in O.A.No.9 of 2001 is pending on the file of the respondent, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits and contents of M.P.No.2 of 2013 in O.A.No.9 of 2001, on the file of the respondent, at this stage, simpliciter, directs the respondent/Joint Commissioner, H.R and C.E De...
M. Thiruselvam Vs. The Director General, Railway Protection Force, New ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders issued by the third respondent dated 17.06.2016 and the order of the fifth respondent in No.P/X/DandAR/R.153/08/2016 dated 21.06.2016 and to quash the same.) 1. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders issued by the third respondent dated 17.06.2016 and the order of the fifth respondent in No.P/X/DandAR/R.153/08/2016 dated 21.06.2016 and to quash the same. 3. The petitioner entered into service as Sub-Inspector of Police (RPF) in the respondents-Railways on 01.06.1987. After undergoing the requisite training, the service of the petitioner was regularized ...
M.A. Ganesan Vs. The District Collector, Sivagangai District and Other ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of the sale deed in Document No.1616 of 2016 dated 11.4.2016 of Sub-Registrar Office, Thiruppuvanam Within the period stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, he purchased the property from one G.Amsavalli, Wife of Govindan, by means of registered sale deed, dated 11.4.2016 on the file of the Sub-Registrar's Office, Thiruppuvanam and it appears that the said Amsavalli had laid a suit in O.S. No.166 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai seeking declaratory relief of holding the sale deed, dated 22.11.2010 as null and void and for declaration and the trial Court had passed an e...
V. Karthik Raja Vs. The Tahsildar, Melur, Madurai District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus seeking direction to the 1st respondent to change patta of the land situated in Vanjinagaram Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District in Survey Nos. 116/1A1 , 115/3A and 115/4A admeasuring to an extent of 55 cents, 37 cents and 76 cents on western side respectively into petitioner's name by considering petitioner's application dated 09.05.2016 within the period that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. According to the petitioner, he has filed the present writ petition praying for passing of an order in directing the first respondent/Tahsildar, Melur, Madurai District, to change the patta of the land situated in Vanjinagaram Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District in Survey Nos. 116/1A1 , 115/3A and 115/4A admeasuring to an e...
A. Aniswar, Minor Vs. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of 2nd respondent comprised in order dated 22.04.2016 bearing reference No FRRO Chennai Ref No.16840 quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the petitioner as OCI and issue appropriate certificate without insisting upon custody order of guardianship in the hands of his mother from court of law.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The deponent of the affidavit, is mother of the minor, namely, A.Aniswar. The deponent would state that she is an Indian Citizen holding an Indian Passport No.NN0276593. The marriage between the deponent and one Asok Kumar was solemnized as per the Hindu Rights and Customs on 28.08.1998 at Trichy and the husband of the deponent is a Malaysian Citizen, holding Malaysian Passport. After the marriage, for a brief peri...
B. Maheswaran Vs. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to provide education loan to petitioner studying B.E (Civil Engineering) first year at Kamarajar College of Engineering and Technology, S.P.G.Chidambara Nagar, Nagammal Campus, S.P.G.C. Nagar, Post Box No.12, Virudhunagar-626 001, by considering petitioner's educational loan application and representation dated 11.04.2016 within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. It is represented on behalf of the respondent/Bank that the respondent/Bank had sanctioned educational loan of Rs.2,10,000/- to the petitioner, which fact is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is closed, as nothing survives for adjudication....
N. Ramalakshmi Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to consider the application given by the Petitioner, dated 11.5.2016 along with the application dated 30.5.2013 for including the name of the Petitioner along with other legal heirs of Late. Sri.Narasimma Nayackar in the patta issued in respect of his properties situated in North Kuruvikulam and South Kuruvikulam, Tirunelveli District.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he made representation to the Second Respondent on 30.5.2013 to include the names of other legal heirs including him in respect of properties of the Petitioner's father situated in North Kuruvikulam in S.Nos.95/6, 109/7A, 109/7B, 113/1, 123/31, 137/1A, 310/6, 336/3A. 249/5, 257/2, 365/2, 365/4, 9...
M/s. Dhaya College of Engineering Vs. The Anna University, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayers in W.P(MD)No.10682 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to forth-with issue a Structural Stability Certificate for the Petitioner's Building without insisting on production of the approved revised plan of the third respondent. W.P(MD)No.10683 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to pass orders on the Petitioner's application dated 30.7.2012 submitted for approval of the revised plan.) Common Order 1. Heard both sides. W.P(MD)No.10682 of 2016 2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner applied for renewal of Provisional Affiliation for the academic session 2016-2017 and when the application for renewal was pending, the First Respondent in its non-booklet published in March 2016 deliberately failed to include its name in the list of affiliated...
The Secretary School Education Department Fort St.George, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.6556 of 2011 dated 29.7.2011.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 29.7.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.6556 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The respondent herein, as petitioner, has filed W.P.No.6556 of 2011 on the file of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to accept B.A., and B.Ed., degrees issued by the competent Universities for selection to the post of Graduate assistant Teacher, wherein the present appellants have been shown as respondents. 3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has obtained B.Ed., Degree in Periyar University and similarly she has obtained B.A Degree course through correspondence course in Annamalai University, but the respondents 2 and 3 have failed to recognize the same. Under such circumstances, present petition has been filed...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »