Chennai Court August 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. Thangadurai Vs. Registrar of Births and Deaths, Puducherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to receive and number the petition dated 7th June, 2016 filed by the petitioner for correction of petitioner's name as "Thangadurai" instead of "Durai" in the birth certificate of petitioner's son by name Sowriraja vide Registration No.M/2001/18238 dated 27.12.2011 issued by the respondent and decide the same in accordance with law.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to receive and number the petition dated 7th June, 2016 filed by the petitioner for correction of his name as "Thangadurai" instead of "Durai" in the birth certificate of petitioner's son by name Sowriraja vide Registration No.M/2001/18238 dated 27.12.2011 issued by the respondent and decide the same in accordance with law. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, his son Sowriraja was born on 14.12.2001 a...
Hemantkumar Ptilokani and Others Vs. The State rep. by its the Deputy ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to C.C.No.242 of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur and quash the same.) 1. A1 to A3 filed Crl.O.P.(MD) 18274 of 2015, A4 accused filed Crl.O.P.(MD) 19972 of 2015, A5 to A8 filed Crl.O.P.(MD) 20845 of 2015 and A9 to A11 filed Crl.O.P.(MD) 21691 of 2015 to quash the charge sheet, filed by the 1st respondent under Section 103 (a)(c)(e) and 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and under Sections 420, 482, 485, 486, 109 IPC in C.C.No.242 of 215 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur. 2. Prior to that, A2 and A5 filed a petition to quash the FIR in Crime No. 356 of 2014. At that time when the matter was taken up for hearing, as the final report had been filed before J.M.II, Srivilliputhur, this Court restrained from quashing the FIR, by making an observation that the remedy open to the petitioners is to challenge the final report after the cogniz...
K.AL. Swaminathan Vs. The District Registrar (Administration), Dindigu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation, dated 11.04.2016 and pass sorders within a stipulated time, as prescribed by this Court.) 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. 4. According to the Petitioner, he had submitted a detailed representation on 09.05.2016, addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, seeking for cancellation of patta, if there is any patta in respect of Seelapadi Village Survey Nos.463/1 and 447/3. Furthermore, the Petitioner, on 11.04.2016, addressed a communication to the Second Respondent / Joint Sub Registrar, Dindigul, wherein, the Petitioner had sought for not to entertain the documents presented for registration of the scheduled mentioned property, especially, by means of affecting the...
B. Jayabharathi Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore Nagapattinam hi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to disburse 50% of the petitioner's share in the amount of Rs.16,12,903/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs twelve thousand nine hundred and three only) lying with him in accordance with the Hindu Law of succession as per the representation of the petitioner dated 10.05.2016.) 1. For Respondents 1 and 2, Mr. S. Kumar, Learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice. 2. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. No Counter Affidavit is filed. 3. According to the Petitioner, her Husband K.Baskar expired on 12.10.2014 in the course of his employment at Muscat, Sultanate of Oman while working in M/s.Galfar Engineering and Contracting SAOG, P.B.No.533, P.C.100. She being the wife of the deceased and her husband has Mother by name, Vembu and her Husband Kaliyaperumal, the 1st Respondent/District Collector had informed the Pet...
K.P. Perumal Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation, rep.by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.3514 of 2010, dated 08.03.2012. Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order bearing Procds.No.DD/11-12, 28.03.2012, issued by the 2nd respondent, to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till his retirement dated 30.04.2012 together with all attendant benefits, including seniority and monetary benefits and award cost.) Common Judgment A. Selvam, J. 1. Writ Appeal No.549 of 2012 has been filed against the order dated 8.3.2012, passed in W.P.No.3514 of 2010. Likewise, W.P.No.10197 of 2012 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 28.3.2012, passed by the second respondent. 2....
Dhanalakshmi Vs. Muniammal @ Senthamarai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and the decreetal order dated 09.12.2011 passed in I.A.No.112 of 2011 in O.S.No.168 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and the decreetal order dated 09.12.2011 passed in I.A.No.112 of 2011 in O.S.No.168 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.168 of 2010 for partition and separate possession of the 1/4th share in the suit properties. The respondent / plaintiff has marked Exhibits-A3 and A4. The said documents are Photostat copies of unregistered release deeds and partition deed. The said documents were filed along with the suit and the admissibility has been objected even in the written statement. In fact, the respondent / plaintiff has filed Proof Affidavit, the said Proof Affi...
Sagayaraj Vs. State by The Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (Sessions Judge for Bomb Blast Cases), Coimbatore, made in S.C.No.61/2011 dated 21.01.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.61/2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (Sessions Judge for Bomb Blast Cases), Coimbatore. He stood charged for offences under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 21.01.2013, the trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 449 of IPC. The sentences have been ordered to run con...
K. Soundarya Vs. The Superintendent of Police Madurai District and Ano ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent No.1 register the case on the petitioner's complaint dated 31.07.2006 and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner approaches this Court with the prayer for a direction to the first respondent to register the case on her complaint, dated 31.07.2006, and proceed with the same, as per law within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that necessary direction shall be given to the second respondent police on the complaint given by the petitioner herein. 3. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to verify the contents in the compliant dated 31.07.2006 given by the petitioner herein and to proceed further in the matter, if any cognizable offence is made out and if it is a fit case to be investigated, the second respondent is directed to register a cas...
Anthoni Pappu Vs. The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2016 seeking the 1st Respondent not to take any action under Act 14 of 1982 against the petitioner's husband on the request the respondents 2 and 3.) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2016 not to take any action under Act 14 of 1982 against the petitioner's husband on the request the respondents 2 and 3. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that already detention order was passed by the District Collector and the same was also served on the petitioner on 20.08.2016 itself. Therefore, the remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the Court dealing with HCP matters. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the pet...
Sree Senbagham Spintex Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Ind ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
(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 execute registered sale deed in respect of the property at Plot No.11, Measuring 0.91 acres situated at Industrial Estate, Theni, in favour of the Petitioner's concern namely M/s.Sree Senbagham Spintex, by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 22.01.2015.) 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. 4. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents / SIDCO Corporation is established by the Government of Tamil Nadu to develop the Small Scale Industries in the State and the Corporation has its own Bye-laws and Regulations. Accordingly, various lands in the State were identified by the Respondents and sanctioned the same to the interested parties, at the consolidated rate. It is to be noted that the lands sanctioned by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »