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.
Prabakaran and Another Vs. Thomas Udayar (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Prayer in CRP(NPD)(MD)No.727 of 2011:This revision is filed under Section 115of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order made in I.A.No.82 of 2009 in O.S.No.912 of 2002 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Trichirappalli, dated 13.12.2010. Prayer in CRP(NPD)(MD)No.728 of 2011:This revision is filed under Section 115of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order made in I.A.No.84 of 2009 in O.S.No.909 of 2002 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Trichirappalli, dated 13.10.2010.) Common Order 1. These revisions are directed against the order passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy and made in I.A.No.82 of 2009 in O.S.No.912 of 2002 and in I.A.No.84 of 2009 of O.S.No.909 of 2002, dated 13.10.2010 respectively. 2. The first respondent as plaintiff instituted the suit against the petitioner for specific performance of agreement, dated 27.03.2000. The petitioner filed his written statement, but subsequently due to his absence, an ex-parte decree was...
Rajamani Vs. Renugadevi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying call for the records from the learned Family Judge, Dindigul in M.C.No.51 of 2014, dated 21.08.2015 and set aside the same.) 1. Challenging the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, to the respondents 1 to 3 in M.C.No.51 of 2015 ordered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dindigul, this revision has been filed by the petitioner/husband. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 are the revision petitioner's wife and sons respectively. He is employed in Border Security Force(BSF). He is guarding the border, but it is alleged that he has not maintain his family. This matter was adjudicated by the learned Family Court Judge, Dindigul. 3. Both sides have not filed the salary receipt of the revision petitioner. Based on the admission of RW1 to the effect that he is receiving Rs.29,000/- per month, the learned Judge, Family Court, Dindigul, directed the BSF Jawan to pay Rs.5,000/-p.m. each to the respon...
N. ChandrabBabu Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the passport of the petitioner bearing Passport No. Z2971459 forthwith and pass such other and further suitable orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made an endorsement in the writ petition to the effect that 'I may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a Criminal Revision Petition'. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file Criminal Revision Petition before the competent forum. No costs....
A. Amal Antony Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2016 and provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2016 and provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in Trichy and a social activist, fighting for the noble cause of common public. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed several RTI application, seeking information from various departments in order to bring out the shortfalls, on account of which, the petitioner is ...
S. Gomathi Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to survey the petitioner's lands in Survey Nos.139/2C1, 160/1b, 165/7A1, 166/2A2, 166/2B2, 169/2B2, 169/3C, 177/3A, 177/3D, 197/3, 198/5A2, 245/6B, 327/2B1, 434/2D, 177/3A1, 172/2, 171/2 and 175/8A, situating in Ilamchembur Village, Mudhukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and consequently, to fix its boundaries as per the revenue records by considering the petitioner's applications dated 22.04.2016 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2016 is pending on the file of third respondent/Tahsildar, Mudhukulathur Taluk Office, Mudhukulathur, Ramanathapuram District, without any disposal whatsoever, this Court, at this stage, simpliciter, directs the third respo...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
1. C.M.P.No.9412 of 2016 has been filed seeking an order of interim stay of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18356 of 2016 dated 03.06.2016. 2. C.M.P.No.9413 of 2016 has been filed seeking to grant an order of interim direction directing the first and second respondent to permit the petitioner-institution to admit students for the academic year 2016-2017, pending disposal of the writ appeal. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-institution have fully complied with the conditions imposed by the AICTE and that the sale deed got registered in the name of the institution, wherein a lease for 99 years has been granted. The sale deed has been recognized as per the practice in vogue and, therefore, all the shortcomings, that have been raised and pin-pointed by AICTE in not granting the approval is for extraneous consideration and, therefore, AICTE has sought to disaffiliate the institution. In this connection, lear...
Muniyandi and Another Vs. State represented through The Inspector of P ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397(1) r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Criminal Appeal No.30(A) of 2012 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai filed against the judgment passed in Calendar Case No.130 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and set-aside the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.30(A) of 20112 dated 04.11.2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.) 1. Now the short and simple question is whether like a suit or appeal suit, a criminal appeal could be dismissed for default. 2. In this respect a civil case is different from a criminal case. In Civil Law, exparte disposal, dismissal for default is well known. But it is unknown in criminal law. Under the Criminal procedure, there is no exparte disposal, exparte conviction, exparte sentence. An accused cannot be punished without a hearing. 3. As per Article 22(1) of the Constitutio...
Asirvatham Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent herein not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry without due process of law.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent herein not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry without due process of law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, who would, on instructions from the respondent police, submit that neither a case nor a petition enquiry is pending against this petitioner on the file of the respondent police. 3. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
M. Periya Sudalai Vs. The District Collector, Thoothukudi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to vacate the TASMAC Shop in Shop No.10080 from the petitioner's building within stipulated time by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 03.06.2013.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to vacate the TASMAC Shop in Shop No.10080 from the petitioner's building within stipulated time by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 03.06.2013. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he had let out a portion of his house to the second respondent to conduct a TASMAC shop. By virtue of the lease, according to the petitioner, the second respondent is conducting TASMAC Shop No.10080 from the year 2004. The petitioner's further case is that, he requested the respondents 1 and 2 to vacate the TASMAC shop earlier and that the responden...
A. Anburosy Vs. The District Collector, Trichy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue the school transfer certificates of petitioner's son to her.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. It comes to be known that the petitioner's husband is affected with H.I.V. disease. Also, it appears that there is some marital discard between the petitioner and her husband. She has left the matrimonial home along with her sons and she is living with her sons in a father's house and taking care of the welfare of the children. Moreover, she has decided to admit her sons in a new school which is nearer to the present residence. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that without obtaining transfer certificates of her sons, there future education will be in question. Therefore, she has approached the third respondent for issuance of transfer certificates and also made a written represent...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »