Chennai Court July 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.
C.A. Babu Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, and Other ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue patta in respect of the property situated in Survey No.32/2A3, Anaiyur Village and Panchayat, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District within the stipulated period.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 4. According to the petitioner, his mother M.Mariammal was the original owner of the property, situated in Sy.Nos.33/2B and 33/2A, Anaiyur Village and Panchayat, Sivakasi Taluk, Sivakasi Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. As a matter of fact, on 05.01.1950, she purchased the said property from erstwhile owners by means of document No.14/1950 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Sivakasi. Eversince the date of purchase, she was in possession and enjoyment of the property and changed patta in her name. 5. The stand of the p...
R. Vanaraj Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Bui ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned transfer order dated Nil passed by the second respondent in Pa.AA.No.21/2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to entertain the petitioner's appeal dated 21.05.2016.) 1. Mr.R.Vanaraj, challenges the transfer order of the second respondent on the ground that there is no reason mentioned in the impugned order dated 21.05.2016 for transferring the petitioner from Kanyakumari District to Tuticorin District. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after putting 11 years of unblemished record of service, the petitioner was reverted from Forest Guard to Forest Watcher on account of departmental proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner. While so, without assigning any reason, whatsoever, in the impugned order of transfer, the respondents arb...
Sivasuriyan @ Surya Vs. State, rep.by Inspector of Police, Villupuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment, dated 27.08.2015, made in S.C.No.72 of 2013 on the file of Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram cum- Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.72 of 2013 on the file of Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram cum- Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 364, 302 read with 201 and 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in deafult to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC; to undergo imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 201 IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 406 IPC. The trial Court acquitted the accused from the charge under Secti...
A. Subramanyam, Proprietor, M/s. Subramanyam and Company, Chennai Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant. a) Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- being the damages suffered by the plaintiff, his business, property and person along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of plaint till the date of payment; b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, persons and servants from putting up any construction or development in the suit premises until the possession of the suit premises until the possession of the suit premises is obtained by the defendants, by due process of law; c) for costs of the suit;) 1. The suit is filed for directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- and for permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the tenant of a portion of the premises in No.140, Anna Pillai Street, Chennai 600 079 measuring about 396 sq.ft used f...
Regunath Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Forest Uniformed Services Recrui ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the experience of the petitioner as Technical Assistant for three years in the department and give preference to the petitioner while recruiting personnel for the posts call for in respondents advertisement No.1/2014 dated 22.12.2014.) T. Raja, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
Thangiah Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(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 consider the Petitioner's representation dated 29.6.2016 as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.332, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 17.11.1993 and further to direct them to renew the Nainarkulam fishing lease in favour of the Petitioner for a period of five years.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. The stand of the Petitioner is that in Tirunelveli, there is a tank called Nainarkulam Tank situated at Tirunelveli Town and it measures an extent of 446.46 acres and has the capacity of filling 18.30 cubic feet water and the water for the said tank comes from Tirunelveli basin. In fact, the Tirunelveli basin receives water from the Papanasam Dam. As a matter of fact, the said tank belongs t...
S. Sethuraman and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (M ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner including Provident Fund, Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension, Leave Salary together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement to till the date of payment within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondents Transport Corporation. Seeking his retirement benefits, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. When the matter is 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 petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. For rea...
Sathiyaseelan Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur in S.C.No.46 of 2015 dated 28.10.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.46 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 28.10.2015, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Mr.Kumaraguru aged about 42 years. He was a resident of Pillaiyar Kovil Street in Veerapuram village, Thiruthuraipoondi taluk, Tiruvarur district. The accused also hai...
S. Arunagiri Vs. The Additional Director General of Police (Law and Or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records and quash the reports of the enquiry dated 07.07.2015 and 22.08.2015 in Na.Ka.No.G-1/14437/2015 issued by the second respondent and consequently, direct the first respondent to conduct fair enquiry on the petitioner's complaints dated 07.04.2015 and 18.11.2015 and the High Court order dated 11.06.2015 together against the respondents 4 to 6 and file the action taken report before the Hon'ble High Court. within a time frame.) 1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the enquiry reports dated 07.07.2015 and 22.08.2015 of the second respondent and for a direction to the first respondent to conduct a fair enquiry on the petitioner's complaints dated 07.04.2015 and 18.11.2015 and the High Court order dated 11.06.2015 together, against the respondents 4 to 6 and file action taken report. 2. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person and Mr. C. Emalias, ...
M. Murugesan Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
(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 consider the representation dated 18.7.2016 and consequently to survey the Petitioner's land by fixing the boundary situated in Silapadi Revenue Village, Dindigul District in S.No.366/1 measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 23 Cents and S.No.358/2A1, having an extent of 3 Acres and 16 Cents and in Chettinayackenpatti Revenue Village in S.No.587/2A1A1 having an extent of 19 cents and in S.No.676 having an extent of 1 acre and 40 cents.) 1. Heard the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 4. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 3. According to the Petitioner, he has an agricultural land at Silapadi Revenue Village, Dindigul District, bearing S.No.366/1 measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 23 Cents and S.No.358/2A1, measuring an extent of 3 Acres and 16 Cents, totally 4 acres and 33 cents of land. He is also in posse...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »