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.
S. Suresh @ Jayachandran Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its The S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to direct the respondent No.2 to initiate necessary proceedings under Section 205 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, dated 04.07.2016, in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner/S.Suresh @ Jayachandran claiming to be a resident of Balakrishna Nagar, which comes under the third respondent Panchayat, for which, the fourth respondent is working as elected President, has come to this Court seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat, the second respondent herein, to take action under Section 205 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 on the basis of his complaint, dated 04.07.2016, in accordance with law. 2. The prayer made by the petitioner does not show any light against whom the petitioner sought action to be taken on the basis of the compl...
S.M. Jaya Prakash Vs. The District Forest Officer, Dindigul and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from obstructing the pathway access which is common in nature, the way leading to the Petitioner's patta land in S.No.411/2 at Vadakadu Village, Dindigul District and further to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to transport the vegetation from the patta land to the plains using the common pathway and for consequential orders.) 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. According to the Petitioner, he is the owner of the property bearing S.No.411/2(which was originally owned by Perumal Mannadi) and after his demise, the said property devolved upon his wife and children: his wife Rahtinammal, for herself and on behalf of her minor children executed a sale deed in his favour vide sale deed, dated 4.5.2...
G. Selvakumar Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tirun ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(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 pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in surcharge proceedings 5/2006-07 dated 14.01.2008 sofar the petitioner is concerned and attachment of salary dated 07.06.2010 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount attached from the salary of the petitioner till date.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and she has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
S.A. Huvailithu Nisha Vs. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram Distr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03/05/2016 and to survey the lands in Survey Nos. 138/1K2 and 138/1K3, Valinokkam Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and fix the boundary lines.) 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, she purchased a property measuring to an extent of 6 acres in Sy.No.138/1K at Valinokkam Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District through a registered sale deed dated 23.02.1983 (vide document No.39 of 1982, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kadaladi). The said property was subdivided as Sy.Nos.138/1K2 and 138/1K3 in patta Number 10129. The demarcating line between the two survey numbers could not be identified, since no survey stones were planted on th...
Dr. A. Sivaniah Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Principal ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders of the second respondent in C.No.E2/2378/11 dated 18.11.2015 (received on 08.12.2015) and quash the same in the light of the order of the Apex Court in Ajaykumar Chaudhary's case.) 1. The petitioner herein was placed under suspension by the Managing Director of Arasu Rubber Corporation on 12.03.2011 under Rule 11 (2) of the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.03.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail by this Court on 06.04.2011 vide order passed in Crl.O.P(MD).No.4281 of 2011. As against the order of suspension, the petitioner had preferred W.P.(MD).No.6891 of 2011 before this Court and a direction was given to the petitioner therein to send a representation to the authoritie...
S. Josephin Vijaya Vs. The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli D ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to approve the promotion of the petitioner as B.T.Assistant with effect from 01.06.2012 with all monetary benefits by considering the proposal submitted by the second respondent dated 16.09.2015.) 1. The petitioner herein seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to approve the promotion of the petitioner as B.T.Assistant with effect from 01.06.2012 with all monetary benefits by considering the proposal submitted by the second respondent, dated 16.09.2015. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant on 26.11.1992 and posted at R.C.Elementary School at Barbarammalpuram under the control of R.C.Managment, Tuticorin Diocese. Her appointment was approved and she was transferred to St.Antony's Middle School, Somanathaperi, On 16.03.1994. Thereafter, the school was upgraded...
R. Gandhi Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Home Affair ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayers: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to strictly abide and adhere to implement the criteria laid down in the Notification No.IV-14014/7/2004-NI-II dated 25.11.2005 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the 1st respondent herein determining the eligibility of languages to be considered for classification of languages as a classical language before granting and declaring to give classical status to the language. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the notification of the first respondent in No.2-16/2004-Akademies dated 31.10.2008, and to quash the same. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned resolution passed by the first respo...
Bhagavath Singh Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Theni and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(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 change the patta NO.4637 instead of 1730 and chagne the name of A.Bhagavath Singh instead of Vijayalakshmi in the adangal issued by the respondents on 24.06.2016 in Survey No.2/1A1 extend of 5 ares which is situated at Koduvilarpatti Village, Theni District in the light of the Petitioner's representation, dated 14.07.2016.) 1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement in the Writ Petition to the following effect :- The prayer of the Writ Petition is complied by the respondent. Hence, I am not pressed this Writ Petition. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
O.M.N. Ulaganathan Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to remove the encroachment in the Petitioner's patta lands in S.Nos.12/9,12/1A, 12/1B and 7/4A1 situated at Chinna Ammankudi Village, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District and to take action against the respondents 2 and 3 in accordance with law.) 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....
Lalitha and Another Vs. State, The Inspector of Police, Puducherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
(Prayer: These Criminal Appeals have been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 24.09.2014 made in S.C.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Puducherry, by allowing these appeals.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.644 of 2014 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.580 of 2014 is the second accused in S.C.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry. They are sisters. The first accused stood charged for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 382 IPC and the second accused stood charged for offence under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 24.09.2014, the Trial Court convicted the first accused and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in de...