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.
R. Karuppiah and Another Vs. The State Bank of India, Represented by i ...
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 restraining the respondents from conducting election in the 36th General Council to be held on 11th and 12th June 2016 without constituting the election sub-committee as per the Rules No.4(i) and (ii) of the State Banks' Union.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs....
M. Muthuganesan Vs. The District Registrar, Periyakulam, Theni Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(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 rectify the entries of guideline value in the records maintained by the respondents/Department with regard to the Petitioner's lands in Keelakudalur Village, in S.Nos.1321, 1322, and 1323 and fix the same per acre as equivalent to the adjacent lands in the locality by appointing a Valuation Committee or in accordance with law by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 15.12.2015 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. According to the Petitioner, the Government guideline value to their agricultural lands alone are ear-marked as Rs.100/- per sq.ft and the valuation of one acre of land comes to Rs.43,60,000/-.The grievance of the Petitioner is that in recent years, the authorities of the Respondents/Department...
R. Lathiba @ Deepa and Others Vs. R. Amutha and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2012 made in A.S.No.93 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2011 made in O.S.No.69 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi and allow the above second appeal.) 1. The plaintiffs/appellants, who lost the legal battle in both the Courts below, have come forward with this second appeal stating that she is the legally wedded wife of Mr.Ramachandran, who died on 12.02.2000 in road accident. The first respondent has claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of Ramachandran and she filed O.S.No.41 of 2006 to declare that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Ramachandran and to direct the 5th respondent to disburse all the terminal benefits arising out of the demise of deceased Ramachandran. The said suit was decreed. Even though, she filed an application in I.A.No.22 of 2007 to implead herse...
Raja Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi District Vs. The Government ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 7876/A3/2016 dated 18.05.2016 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim in terms of Sec.22 of the Private Schools Regulation Act 1974.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner/School, the school building is situated in 2 acres of land and abutting the school, there is an extent of 5 acres of land comprised in S.R.Nos.365/2 and 365/6 and this 5 acres of land stands in the name of the school 'Nirvagasthar', who is the Managing Trustee and Secretary of the School namely E.Ramkumar Raja. 4. The stand of the petitioner is that the property stands in the name of school 'Nirvagasthar' and not in the name of the school or the trust. This ar...
M. Babu Vs. The Chennapuri Annadana Samajam (Regd), Rep. By its Honour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.10.2014 made in A.S.No.165 of 2013 thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Vth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.6384 of 2009 dated 30.12.2012.) 1. The first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession is the appellant. Both the courts concurrently found against the appellant and granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff Trust. The second and third defendants remained exparte before both the courts. The present appeal is listed before me at the 'Adjourned Admission' stage. 2. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows:- The plaintiff is one of the philanthropic institution at Chennai, which is now more than 100 years old. Its objects are to feed the poor without distinction of caste or creed; to establish minor industries for such poor; to establish educational instit...
Murugan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Chinthamanipatti Police Station, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent to expedite the investigation and file final report within stipulated time in Crime No. 47 of 2016.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent to expedite the investigation and file final report within stipulated time in Crime No. 47 of 2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, who would submit that the investigation would be completed and final report would be filed within a period of three months. 3. In view of the above submission, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent police to complete the investigation in Crime No.47 of 2016 and to file a final report before the concerned jurisdictional Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order....
V. Kasimayan Vs. The Tahsildar, Theni and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(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 measure the Petitioner's property in S.No.394-A2A of Shanmugasundarapuram village of Andipatti Taluk and issue separate patta by sub-dividing the property 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. According to the Petitioner, the land in S.No.394-A2A measuring an extent of 57.3/4 cents in Shanmugasundaram Village of Andipatti Taluk was purchased by his grand-father Periasamy by way of registered Sale deed in the year 1973 itself(vide Document No.739 of 1973). From the date of said purchase, his grand-father was in possession and after his demise, his wife Pappathy and their two children Virumandi and Pechiammal had inherited the property and as on date, the Petitioner is taking care of the property on behalf of the entir...
S. Seeniselvaraj Vs. The Sub Collector, Tuticorin District and Another
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 consider the petitioner's application dated 15.03.2016 and representation dated 22.04.2016.) 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 petitioner addressed a detailed representation dated 22.04.2016 to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Tuticorin seeking change of patta in his name (after removing the name of his uncle one Rengasamy Naicker). For the said representation, the District Collector, Tuticorin had addressed a communication to the first respondent/Sub Collector, Tuticorin stating that for sending report on the complaint petitions, the complaint petitions together with enclosures are sent and further, the petitioner may be informed about the action taken. 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2016 is pending withou...
K. Sheik Mohamed Ali Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Tribunal represented by its S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed against the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.2/2001, dated 16.11.2004 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tirunelveli, confirming the order passed by the 1st respondent in R.C.No.17154/B1/TNV, dated 29.03.2001.) 1. Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16.11.2004, made in C.M.A.No.2/2001, on the file of Wakf Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tirunelveli, confirming the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Tribunal, the first respondent in R.C.No.17154/B1/85/TNV, dated 29.03.2001. 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the case are as follows: Malukamalaiar Mosque and burial ground and Labbai nainar Pallivasal are two separate wakfs situated in Kalakad, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Originally the above said wakfs were administrated by one M.Malukkamaliar Rowther, who was the Muthavalli of these two wakfs and he was removed on the charge of misappropriation of wakf funds. Thereafter, dispute ...
Babu @ Samsudhin Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Cuddalore District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment, dated 22.01.2014, made in S.C.No.199 of 2012 on the file of District Mahalir Sessions Court, Cuddalore.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. Appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.199 of 2012 on the file of District Mahalir Sessions Court, Cuddalore. There were two other accused, by name, John Basha and Sabirabi. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 342 and 302 read with 34 IPC against all the three accused. By judgment, dated 22.01.2014, the trial Court acquitted the accused 2 and 3; however, convicted the first accused under Section 302 IPC alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The trial Court acquitted the first accused of the charge under Section 342 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/first accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : 2.1. The d...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »