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.
A. Maria Anto Melvin Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Madurai and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue a passport to the petitioner by considering his passport application in File No.MD2068965640115 in the light of the Notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs vide G.S.R.570(E) dated 25.08.1993 within the stipulated period as prescribed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, he applied for a passport by means of submitting an on-line application before the Passport Seva Kendra, Tirunelveli District and his application was accepted. As a matter of fact, on 26.11.2015, he personally appeared at the Passport Seva Kendra, Tirunelveli and after paying necessary charges, he submitted relevant documents before the Passport Authority concerned. His application was taken on file vide File No. MD2068965640115 and till date, his appli...
A. Panneerselvam Vs. Arakandanallur Primary Agricultural Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent made in Na.Ka.5117/2000, SaPa.dated 29.09.2001 and the consequential order of the first respondent dated 24.08.2002 and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the proceedings of the third respondent made in Na.Ka.5117/2000, SaPa. dated 29.09.2001 and the consequential order of the first respondent dated 24.08.2002 and to quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Salesman in the first respondent Society on 16.10.1974. Since the post of Clerk was vacant and he was fully qualified to hold the said post, the first respondent promoted him to the post of Clerk, by order dated 31.12.1993 and therefore he has continued to discharge his work on and from 31.12.1993 as Clerk. While so, on 02.05.1994, the fourth respondent was appointed as C...
C. Choodesan Vs. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for granting Selection Grade and the Special Grade in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 28.10.2005 and 28.10.2015 and to grant annual increments from 01.10.1998 onwards till 01.10.2015 and to pass orders in the light of the representation, dated 07.03.2016, within a time frame and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for granting Selection Grade and the Special Grade in the post of Junior Assistant w.e.f. from 28.10.2005 and 28.10.2015 and to grant annual increments from 01.10.1998 onwards till 01.10.2015 and to pass orders...
Palaniappan @ Srinivasan Vs. Udayakumar, Tahsildar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer:Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the respondent for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No.1709 of 2014 in W.P(MD)No.14616 of 2014, dated 4.6.2015.) 1. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the order, dated 5.3.2015 passed by the First Respondent/The Tahsildar, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District, has been stayed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.17045 of 2015, dated 14.10.2015. As such, the Contempt Petition stands closed....
M.S. Bindhu Vs. The Block Health Supervisor, Government Primary Health ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(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 remove the septic tank based on the report of the first respondent forthwith and pass orders on the representation of the Petitioner dated 4.1.2016 within the time frame fixed 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. To avoid unavoidable delay, notice to the Third Respondent is dispensed with by this Court. 4. According to the Petitioner, she is living with her two children at Kulappuram Village, Kuranguman Vilai(19-43-A), Sooriyakode Post 629 153, Kanaykumari District, for more than six years. Her husband is serving in Military in Punjab. She is using to bore-well water for drinking purpose, which is attached to her house. As a matter of fact, the Third Respondent had constructed a house under the ''Green House Scheme'' and also constructed a toi...
T. Mohan Vs. The State represented by, the Inspector of Police, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2016 in C.C.No.4 of 2006 by the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the above said learned Judge to recall the P.W.15 of the said case for cross examination.) 1. As against the refusal of the C.B.I. Court, Madurai to recall P.W.15, A8 who has failed to that extent in Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2016 in C.C.No.4 of 2006 has directed this revision. 2. There are 8 accused in this case. They were challaned before the CBI Court, Madurai by the ACB of CBI, Chennai. As one absconded, the balance 7 accused have took up their trial. Revision Petitioner is one of them. Evidence has been let in. The case is posted for defence evidence. Almost it is on its last journey. At this juncture revision petitioner woke up. Filed Crl.M.P.No.310 of 2016 to recall P.Ws.15, 42, 48 and 51. H...
P.K. Rajesh Khanna Vs. M.P. Kumaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 407 read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to withdraw the case in S.T.C. No.836 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram, to any one of the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts situated at Saidapet, Chennai - 15.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to withdraw the case in S.T.C. No.836 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram, to any one of the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts situated at Saidapet, Chennai - 15. 2. Heard both sides. 3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant respectively. 4. The complainant lodged a prosecution in C.C. No.740 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity the Act ). The accused filed Crl.O.P. No.10012 of 2012 for transferring C.C. No.740 of 2010 from the file of the Jud...
V. Sivalingam Vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the 3rd respondent, dated 09.10.2015 and to quash the same with consequential direction to the respondents to release the entire retirement and other benefits due to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% within a time fixed by this Court and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.) 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the 3rd respondent, dated 09.10.2015 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the entire retirement and other benefits due to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% within a time frame. 3. The petitioner entered into service as Sales Man, on 12.12.1974, in the K...
Prakash Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Erode
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila [Fast Track] Court, Erode, Erode District, in S.C.No.121 of 2013 dated 09.04.2014.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.121 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila [Fast Track] Court, Erode. He stood charged for offence under Section 5(i) r/w Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506(ii) of IPC. The trial court, by judgement dated 09.04.2014, convicted him under Sections 5(i) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 506(ii) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one year for offence under Section 5(i) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences...
Ravichandran Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur District and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Second Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 27.05.2016 and to give house tax receipt for the Petitioner's house.) 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 is the owner of the land in S.No.199, Vilar Village, measuring an extent of one acre. As a matter of fact, the said land belongs to his grand-mother and his grand-mother got the said land by means of registered sale deed in the year 1957. Later, his grand-mother gave the said land by means of settlement to his Mother, Elder Sister and to his Brother. 4. Apart from that, during the year 1997, the Petitioner purchased 90 cents from his brother Raju and 10 cents from his mother's sister Shengabavalli by means of registered sale deed. From the date of purchase, he is i...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »