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.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Article 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.12.2014 made in W.P.Nos.15985 and 15984 of 2008 respectively.) Common Judgment M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The instant intra Court Appeals are filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15984 of 2008 and W.P.No.15985 of 2008 whereby the Writ Petitions were allowed. 2. Heard the submissions of Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants and Mr.Ravindranath, learned counsel for Mr.U.Karunakaran, for the respondent. 3. The factual matrix leading to the present controversy revolves around a very narrow compass. The Respondent / Writ Petitioner was selected and appointed as Deputy Collector in the Tamil Nadu Civil Services for the vacancies of the year 1998-99 by direct recruitment through TNPSC vide G.O.(Ms)No.16 (Revenue SCR-1) Department dated 09.01.2002 along with ...
Sankary Vs. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai and ...
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 Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.GB1/9729/04, dated 22.01.2016 and the consequential impugned order in Ne.Mu.Ka.GB1/9729/2004, dated 09.03.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to lay road in TS.Nos.1455/2A2 and 1455/2B2, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli, without following the due process of law.) Order: 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner; the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the First and Second Respondents and the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Third Respondent. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, by means of partition deed, dated 17.03.2014, he and his daughter S.S.Srinithi and one Ram Kumar are the joint owners of Parvathi Sesha Mahal situated at 38B/...
R. Krishnasamy and Others Vs. The Chairman cum Managing Director, TANG ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent in the website of TANGEDCO, vide DPR/1000/TENDER/2013 in so far as the interview is concerned and the consequential selection list of 4000 Nos. of Helper (Trainee) by direct recruitment 2013-2014 issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents without selecting the petitioners are null and void, illegal and against the Board's proceedings and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Helper (Trainee) with all attendant benefits.) 1. By consent of both parties, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. These writ petitions have been filed, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent in the website of TANGEDCO, vide DPR/1000/TENDER/2013 in so far as ...
R. Srinivasan Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Others
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 not to errect any post and not to draw electrical transmission line over the petitioner's land in S.No.64/1B, Thathampatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to erect any post and not to draw electrical transmission line over the petitioner's land in S.No.64/1B, Thathampatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the agricultural land measuring to an extent of 69.50 Ares in Survey No.64/1B in Thathampatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. He further submits that the respondents 1 and 2 are trying to draw an electrical line of 230 KV from Sempatty to Karaikudi, touching his land in Survey No.64/1B. Though the petitioner raised objections, it was the stand of the...
Pushpathur Kongu Malar Cultural Association, Rep. by its President P. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the lawful activity of playing "Rummy" (13 cards) by the members of the petitioner association.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the lawful activity of playing "Rummy" (13 cards) by the members of the petitioner association. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner association is registered under the Societies Registration Act having Regn.No.75 of 2015 on 07.09.2015 on the file of the Registrar of Societies, Virudhunagar. The petitioner association is formed for the purpose of carrying on the activities like public welfare schemes, free medical aid, free legal aid, free welfare schemes to physically challenged persons, besides allowing its members to play games (both indoor and outdoor games) like Volley Bal...
A. Iammanuel Amalraj Vs. The Director of Matriculation Schools, Chenna ...
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 second respondent to grand recognition to the Hilleya Matriculation School, Ayyanaroothu, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District by considering the application dated 09.01.2013.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he started a school in the year 2009 in the name and style of Hilleya Nursery and Primary School at Ayyanaroothu, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District. The area is a remote one. The concerned authorities after verifying all the documents and the institution, granted recognition to the Hilleya Nursery and Primary School for a period of three years from 01.06.2009 to 31.05.2012. In fact, the third respondent had passed the aforesaid order of granting recognition by means of proceedings dated 30.04.2016 for the aforesaid period. Subsequently, the School Management...
Dharmar and Others Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD) 9143/2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of pending FIR before the respondent police in Crime No.113 of 2016 dated 08.05.2016 for the offence under Sections 109 and 354 IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and to quash the same. Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD) 9144/2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of pending FIR before the respondent police in Crime No.85/2016 dated 29.03.2016 for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and 3(i) of TNPPDL Act and to quash the same.) Common Order 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Ac...
Palani @ Palanisamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(1) Cr.P.C., against the judgment in S.C.No.49/2010 dated 13.12.2010, on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, Salem District.) S. Nagamuthu. J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.49/2010 on the file of the learned I dditional Sessions Judge, Salem. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court by judgment dated 13.12.2010, convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Jaya. The appellant/accused is her husband. P.Ws.1 and 3 are their sons. P.W.3, who was already married was living separately with his wife in a house behind the ...
Arulmighu Pandimuneeswarar Thiru Kovil, parambarai Maruthuvar Sangam V ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to summon the respondents and deal with them as per law for their wilful disobedience in undertaking the direction of this Court's order made in W.P(MD)No.9887 of 2016, dated 6.6.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Earlier on 6.6.2016, in W.P(MD)No.9887 of 2016, this Court passed an order directing the Petitioner/Sangam to file appropriate petition seeking necessary remedy and also interim applications seeking interim reliefs within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order . 3. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner/Sangam filed O.A on 9.6.2016 before the First Respondent/The Joint Commissioner, HRandCE Department, Madurai and the same was taken on file only on 13.6.2016. 4. On behalf of the Respondents, the Learned Additional Advocate General informs this Court that the Joint Commissioner, HRandCE Department, Madurai was...
Danushkodi Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
(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 enforce G.O.Ms.No.332, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries(FS.IV) Department, dated 17.11.1993 and to direct them to renew the Adaichani Periyakulam lease for five years 2015-16 to 2019-20.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, he makes out a living out of fish and he is a fish culturist. Furthermore, he takes small tanks for lease and grow fish, catch them and sell them and make a small profit in the bargain. The stand of the Petitioner is that the Respondents lease out the water tanks in Tirunelveli District and traditionally, fish coming into the tank through the flood water flow and he took on lease the Adaichani Periyakulam for the year 2015-2016 for highest bid amount of Rs.46,000/- etc. He had spent a sum of Rs.80,000/- to buy t...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »