Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to take the petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Durai to private hospital for further treatment to his ailment at the cost of the petitioner by considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 21.05.2016.) All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human persons. (United Nations - Covenant on Civil and Political rights - UNICCPR) 1. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to permit the petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Durai to take treatment in a private hospital at the cost of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Brief Facts: 3. The petitioner's husband, namely, Pandi Dur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli, to accept the surrender and consider the bail application to be filed the petitioner, on the same day on merits in Crime No.15 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board, Tiruneveli, to accept the surrender of the petitioners and consider their bail application on the same day in connection with Crime No.15 of 2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent police. A case has been registered against the petitioners, who are juveniles, under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 355, 323 and 506(ii) IPC read with Sections 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. When a specific question was posed as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent in Na.ka.No.417/2016/B, dated 21.07.2016, quash the same.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Counter of Respondent No.2 is filed. 3. According to the Petitioner / Society / Club, it is basically a Recreation Club and having Registration Number Sl.No.14/2012. In the Petitioner / Club, there is an attached Bar. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner / Club purchases the liquor cases from TASMAC Godown, after remitting appropriate charges. In fact, the Members joined together and consumed liquor and the expenditure involved is shared. Towards this, the Petitioner / Club pays privilege fee to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. Further, the Petitioner / Club is running a Bar, for the past four years. For the benefit of the Bar members, F.L.2 License was taken. 4. The stand of the Petitioner / C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.8929 of 2015: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings K.No.4518/2009/Vu.Po2, dated 14.05.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to take appropriate measures to draw a composite plan to construct road over bridge and service road abutting Ramamurthy Road, Virudhunagar Town, simultaneously to ensure free access of the petitioner to the public places.) Common Order 1. Here, is an yet another round of litigation by the respective petitioners, regarding the issue of construction of a Road Over Bridge in lieu of Existing LC.No.403 at Railway Km. 538/500 - 600 between Virudhunagar and Thulukkapatti Railway Stations (Virudhunagar Town). 2. W.P(MD)No.8929 of 2015 has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents or their subordinates from in any way constructing high tension electric transmission tower and laying high electric transmission lines through the petitioner's land in Survey No.406/4, 418/5C, Lingavadi Village and Survey No.285/11 and 289/6B Reddiapatti Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.) Common Order: 1. All these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners/land owners against the proposal of the Electricity Board/TANGEDCO to place the electricity line/towers for transmission of electricity in the route namely Alagarkoil-Natham-Sembatty. The writ petitioners herein are owning lands in different villages and survey numbers, in the route, in which the proposed work of placing of electricity line/towers for the transmission of electricity has been undertaken by the Electricity Board/TANGEDCO (hereinafter in short 'Board'). 2. It is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 28.02.2012 made in A.S.No.91 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.137 of 2005 dated 27.06.2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.) 1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.137 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, is the appellant in this second appeal. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the suit properties belongs to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession. 3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff as culled out from the plaint, are as follows: 3.1. The suit properties belonged to the grandfather and grandmother of the plaintiff. The grandparents of the plaintiff had three sons and one daughter. Till 1977, the suit properties were enjoyed in common. By a registered partition, all the family pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-1; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2 respectively, as well as the consequential order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-3 passed by the 2nd respondent both dated 20.06.2016 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners; the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent. 2. The Petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned orders in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-1; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2; Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-2 respectively, as well as the consequential order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2578/2016/Aa1-3 passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer in W.P.No.11481 of 2008 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the return of request for the approval of appointment of the petitioner in the post of Waterman in fourth respondent School in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.2902/Aa3/06, dated 07.06.2006 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve of the appointment of the petitioner as Waterman in the fourth respondent School from the date of the appointment, i.e., 16.09.2004. Common Order: The issue involved in all these writ petitions relates to the appointment and approval of non-teaching staff in Aided Minority and Non-Minority Schools governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 framed in exercise of the powers conferred under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Manadamus calling for the records pertaining to the communication dated 09.06.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the first respondent to register the pending Document No.45/2012 on the file of the 1st respondent in connection with the property comprised in UDR S.No.98/3 of an extent of 3723 sq.ft situated at Vandiyoor II Bit Village in Resurvey No.246/3 A comprised in Patta No.377 and to return the original documents to the petitioner.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the communication dated 09.06.2015 issued by the 1st respondent (Sub-Registrar, Theppakulam) directing the petitioner to produce No Objection Certificate from the Wakf Board for registration of the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:- 2-1. The petitioner is the Society viz., Madurai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in registering the impugned cancellation deed of sale in Document No.876/2000 dated 25.02.2000 executed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to make corresponding entry in the Book No.1 of his office and pass orders on merits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in registering the impugned cancellation deed of sale in Document No.876/2000 dated 25.02.2000 executed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to make corresponding entry in the Book No.1 of his office and pass orders on merits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of nanja lands to an extent of 25 cents on the western side in Re-survey No.115/10...
Tag this Judgment!