Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair order and decreetal order of the Learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur passed in IA.No.383/2015 in OS.No.106 of 2014 on his file dated 07/10/2016.) 1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for partition. The plaintiff is the son of Late N.K.Radhakrishnan. The 1st defendant is the wife of Late N.K.Radhakrishnan and defendants 2 and 3 are daughters of Late N.K.Radhakrishnan. 2. The defendants 1 and 3 filed written statement contesting the claim of share in the suit properties on the ground that most of the properties were settled by Late N.K.Radhakrishnan in favour of the 2nd defendant and some of the suit properties were sold by him during his life time. The agricultural land and the business in the name and style of ''Radha Chemicals'' were not included in the suit schedule properties and therefore, the suit is bad for partial partition. 3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, made in E.P.No.134/97 in HMOP.No.254/91 dated 13.11.2006.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, made in E.P.No.134/97 in HMOP.No.254/91 dated 13.11.2006, whereby, the petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the Court below. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent herein and the respondent herein had filed H.M.O.P.No.254 of 1991 before the Court below for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.59 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 2.1 Both the cases were tried jointly and ultimately, the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the petitioner's petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to forbear the second respondent to demolish the petitioner's house situated in Survey No.86/8 at Athikaripatty Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2017.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the first respondent to forbear the second respondent from demolishing the house of the petitioner situates in Survey No.86/8 at Athikaripatty Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. 2. Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that in respect of Survey No.86/8, a patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner wherein he put up a dwell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in issuance of the impugned proceeding issued by the first respondent dated 27.02.2017 bearing reference No.Na.Ka.No.1535/16 Thi Vu Thi Ku and consequential proceedings dated 28.02.2017 bearing date 01.03.2017, to quash the same as null and void and direct the first and second respondents to remove the lock and seal and permit the third respondent to run the shop in No. 181 5/A, S.N.High Road, Sripuram, Tirunelveli - 627 007.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 27.02.2017 bearing No.Na.Ka.No. 1535/16Thi.Vu.Thi.Ku and the consequential proceedings dated 01.03.2017 and quash the same, by way of issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus. 2. Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to grant police permission to conduct the Annual Temple Festivals in connection with the Ceremonies, Poojas in Arulmighu Kulumayee Amman Thirukovil and Ondi Karuppu Thirukovil festival on 23.02.2017, 07.03.2017 to 11.03.2017 in the petitioner's Village, (Puthur Village), Trichy Taluk, Trichy District on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2017. 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant police permission to conduct the Annual Temple Festivals in connection with the Ceremonies, Poojas in Arulmighu Kulumayee Amman Thirukovil and Ondi Karuppu Thirukovil festival on 23.02.2017, 07.03.2017 to 11.03.2017 in the petitioner's Village, (Puthur Village), Trichy Taluk, Trichy District on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2017. 2. It is the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2015, passed in A.S.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Theni 2 reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2014 passed in O.S.No.120 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni.) Common Judgment 1. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.358 of 2015 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.16 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Court, Theni, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.120 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni. The first defendant is the appellant and the first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 7 are the defendants 2 to 7 in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.120 of 2011 for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.359 of 2015 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.17 of 2014, on the file of the Pri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.19887 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned transfer order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.049797/W2/E1/2015 dated 08.09.2016 (served to the petitioner on 03.10.2016) and the consequential relieving order passed by the 4th respondent in her proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 161 of 2016 dated 03.10.2016 and quash the same as illegal. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.21806 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.049797/W2/E1/2015 dated 08.09.2016 and the consequential relieving order passed by the 3rd respondent in her proceedings in Na.Ka.No.150 of 2016 dated 16.09.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pose the petitioner in the 3rd respondent school.) Common Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the communication of the 3rd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.35044/G4/2016 dated 28.11.2016 to the 5th respondent and consequential order passed by the 5th respondent University made in Ref.Dean CDC/MKU/2016 dated 15.12.2016 as well as the communication of the 4th respondent made in Na.Ka.No.8515/Oo2/2016 dated 12.01.2017 to the 6th respondent and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the communication of the 3rd respondent dated 28.11.2016 in Na.Ka.No.35044/G4/2016 sent to the 5th respondent and the consequential order passed by the 5th respondent University in Ref.Dean CDC/MKU/2016 dated 15.12.2016 as well as the communication of the 4th respondent made in Na.Ka.No.8515/Oo2/2016 dated 12.01.2017 to the 6th respondent. 2. The 3rd respondent vide communication dated 28.11.2016 informed the 5th respondent th...
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 calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the second respondent in R.C.No.D2/23317/2016, dated 17.12.2016 and to quash the same as illegal.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 17.12.2016 cancelling the No Objection Certificate issued under the Explosives Act, 1884. 2. The case of the Petitioner, in short, is as follows: The Petitioner/Company is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and export of explosives for industrial purposes permitted under the Explosives Act, 1884. The Petitioner/company established a factory in Murangampatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. The said factory premises was established after obtaining all statutory permissions and clearances as required under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the rules made thereunder. The sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.200 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner herein.) 1. This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.200 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai as against the petitioner herein. 2. It is averred in the petition that the second respondent lodged a complaint in the first respondent police and charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners joined together and created forged documents by amending the survey number from 5/3B-2D2 to 5/3B-2D3 so as to grab 13 cents land belonging to the defacto complainant. The first respondent has not conducted the investigation properly. He has not even noticed the death of the first accused even before lodging the complaint. Without analy...
Tag this Judgment!