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.
M. Velmurugan Vs. The Deputy Registrar (Housing), Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records made in impugned notice dated 30.11.2015 made in Na.Ka.No.882/15 Sa.Pa(2) and consequent notice in Tha.Pa.No.2/2015-2016 dated 23.05.2016 issued by the respondent under section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and quash the same as illegal.) 1. Mr.M.Velmurugan, who is serving as Secretary in the office of the Housing Co-operative Societies, Madurai, challenges the impugned show cause notice, dated 30.11.2015, issued under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and a consequential notice in Tha.Va.No.2/2015-2016, dated 23.05.2016, issued with a direction to him to appear before the Enquiry Officer within 15 days, to explain the charges mentioned in the impugned notice. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, without providing necessary documents, he has been asked to appear for the enquiry. While he has requ...
R. Venkataraman Vs. S.R. Meenkashi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the fair and decretal order dated 12.8.2013 passed in I.A.No.1066 of 2012 in O.P.No.1090 of 2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.) A. Selvam, J. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 12th August, 2013 passed in I.A.No.1066 of 2012 in O.P.No.1090 of 2011 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. 2. The appellant herein, as petitioner, has filed a petition in O.P.No.1090 of 2011 on the file of the Court below under section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein the present respondent has been arrayed as sole respondent. During pendency of the same, the respondent, as petitioner, has filed I.A.No.1066 of 2012 under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying to direct the petitioner in O.P.No.1090 of 2011 to pay interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per mensum, Rs.15,000/- for rental accommodation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The c...
Ramaiah Vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 r/w 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned District and Sessions Court, Tiruvarur, in S.C.No.98 of 2012, dated 05.09.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.98 of 2012 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur. He was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 05.09.2013, the trial court convicted and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six 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 accused hails from Thiruvasal Village in Thiruvarur District. He was living in the said village with his wife, Mrs.Bommi. He has got his son, by name, Arul (P.W.1). Arul married one Mrs.Kousalya of Sooleswarapatti Village out o...
R. Palanisamy Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd Respondent to register the case based on the complaint given by the Petitioner dated 21.04.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd Respondent to register the case based on the complaint given by the Petitioner dated 21.04.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that already a case has been registered under Sections 406, 417, 419, 420, 447, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.171 of 2016. 3. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed....
S. Amutha Vs. The Manager, Bank of Baroda, Madurai
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to grant educational loan to the petitioner's son namely S.Gowtham studying first year MBBS at Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences, Puduchery 605 502 as per loan application submitted by the petitioner dated 14.03.2016 to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- on pledging the house property belonging to the petitioner situate at S.S.Colony, Madurai City.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, her husband expired on 11.02.2009 leaving behind her and two children with no support whatsoever. It appears that the petitioner's son is studying in first year M.B.B.S. Course at Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences, Puduchery and her daughter is studying in school. The petitioner's son's expenses including all fees for the medical course would be Rs.50 lakhs...
K. Alagar and Others Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State T ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writs of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioners in view of the representations dated 01.06.2016 and 03.06.2016.) Common Order 1. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and decided by a common order. 2. All The petitioners herein were the employees of the respondent Transport Corporation. Seeking their retirement benefits, they have preferred the present Writ Petitions. 3. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015 dated 12.06.2015. He has further submitted that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioners in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 4. For ready referen...
O.L. Kannan Vs. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat, Dha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents and their subordinates from inviting the applications or issuing any fresh notification to operate the Boat Transport at Ottanur-Kottaiyur in Pennagaram Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District, consequently directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to operate the Boat Transport at Ottanur-Kottaiyur in the 3rd respondent Panchayat Union from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2017.) 1. This writ petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents and their subordinates from inviting applications or issuing any fresh notification to operate the Boat Transport at Ottanur-Kottaiyur in Pennagaram Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District and consequently to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to operate the Boat Transport at Ottanur-Kottaiyur in the 3rd respondent Panchayat Union from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2017. 2. The petitioner is a registe...
K.M. Janath Gani Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur District and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 7 from converting the patta land in Survey No.87/3G and 87/3A in Pandaravadai Village, Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District into a burial ground by permitting burial of dead bodies and for further direction to the respondents to remove the corpse burred on 19.07.2015 in the said property forthwith and award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages to the Petitioner.) 1. The learned counsel on record for the petitioner has circulated a letter, dated 09.06.2016 to the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. The said letter is placed on record. 2. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Mani Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Kadathur Police Station, Dh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st accused in S.C.No.73 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No.73 of 2012 dated 22.03.2013. The 2nd accused was one Mr.Govindasamy. The 1st accused stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and the 2nd accused stood charged for offences under Sections 302 read with 109 of IPC and 307 of IPC. By judgment dated 22.03.2013, the trial court acquitted the 2nd accused from both the charges, however, convicted the 1st accused/appellant herein under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction ...
M/s. Indirani Engineering represented by its Partner Vs. The Chairman ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit to the petitioner firm as per proceeding made in Rc.No.9409/1E-5/2014 issued by the first respondent dated 29.01.2016 and consequently, grant further time.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.9409/1E-5/2014 dated 29.01.2016 whereby and whereunder it was inter alia observed as under: The above subject matter was placed before the 274th Board Meeting held on 18.12.2015 and the Board vide resolution No.108 resolved to authorize the Managing Director to grant extension of time upto 30.09.2016 for the genuine/serious entrepreneurs who have not utilized the plot beyond six years and now showing serious interest in commencing industry without charging any penalty as a one time measure a...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »