Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the original impugned order in Reference No.Sattam/Sa3/9514/16, dated 9.12.2016 passed by the respondent and to quash the same as illegal, within the time contemplated in the provision of law, without delay.) Order: 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in Reference No.Sattam/Sa3/9514/16, dated 9.12.2016, rejecting the request of the petitioner to revoke the suspension, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as Senior Grade Conductor at Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai) Limited in Sivakasi Branch, the Petitioner was temporarily suspended from service on 11.12.2016, for misappropriation of Corporation fund to the tune of Rs.250/- by re-is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.5 of 1998, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, dated 26.06.1998, reversing the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, in O.S.No.409 of 1991, dated 24.11.1997.) 1. The defeated defendants are the appellants herein. 2. The respondent / plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.409 of 1991, before the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, for the relief of declaration of title to the suit property, recovery of possession and also for mesne profits. 3. After contest, the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, by Judgment and Decree, dated 24.11.1997, dismissed the suit with costs. 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, the respondent / plaintiff preferred an appeal, in A.S.No. 5 of 1998, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai. 5. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and docu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, in A.S.No.43 of 2012, dated 31.10.2012 confirming the decree and judgment of the District Munsif, Thanjavur in O.S.No. 170 of 2010, dated 26.06.2012.) Common Judgment: 1. S.A.(MD)No.424 of 2013 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.43 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.170 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Curt, Thanjavur. 2. S.A.(MD)No.427 of 2013 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.44 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.171 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Curt, Thanjavur. 3. S.A.(MD)No.475 of 2013 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.41 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.4 in Mu.Mu.No.6931/a1/2011 dated 02.09.2013 and quash the same as unconstitutional and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of their appointment.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certioararified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.4 in Mu.Mu.No.6931/a1/2011 dated 02.09.2013 and quash the same as unconstitutional and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of their appointment. 2. The case of the petitioners are that they were appointed temporarily in Schools under the third respondent jurisdiction by the Parent Teachers Association. The petitioners 1 to 5 were appointed as Sweepers and the 6th petitioner was appointed as Of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No. 94 of 2014 from the file of the Sub Court, Theni and transfer the same to any other Family Court in Chennai.) 1. Heard Mr.M.Mohamed Muzammil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner/wife to transfer H.M.O.P.No.94 of 2014 on the file of Sub Court, Theni, to any other Family Court, Chennai, filed by the respondent/husband, for divorce. 3. This Court granted an order of interim stay of further proceedings on 15.03.2016 and a copy of the order was served upon the respondent/husband on 29.03.2016 itself. A memo was also filed before the Trial Court on 16.03.2016. 4. However, the respondent filed an advance hearing petition in H.M.O.P.No.94 of 2014 filed by him and got a decree of divorce on 21.09.2016...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned order dated 15.04.2016 in No.57611/N3/2015 and consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Pa.Mu.Tha.No.722/2010 dated 20.01.2015 and quash the same.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 15.04.2016 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 47A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner had presented a sale deed before the third respondent for registration and the same was registered as Document No.710 of 2010. However, an order came to be passed on 20.01.2015 by the Collector of Stamps under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, calling ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure, against the fair and executable order, dated 10.11.2009, made in I.A.No.205 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2009, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and executable order, dated 10.11.2009, made in I.A.No.205 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2009, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The first respondent is the third party to the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2009 and petitioner in I.A.No. 205 of 2009. The respondents 2 to 6 are the defendants 1 to 5. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2009 before the Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, for declaration to declare that the sale deed, dated 15.07.1986, executed by the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the fifth respondent/fourth defendant and also to declare that...
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: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent proceeding in Na.Ka.No.05/Se.Mu.Kaa.Thu.Ka.Ku/2017 dated 23.01.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to perform cultural programme of ''Orchestral Music'' to be conducted on 29.01.2017 and 31.01.2017 at about 10.00 p.m. to 02.00 a.m. in connection with the ''St.Antony Feast Festival'' of St.Antony Church'' at Karuthapillaiyur, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.05/Se.Mu.Kaa.Thu.Ka.Ku/2017, dated 23.01.2017, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to perform cultural...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.10880 of 2015 in C.C.No.11 of 2014 dated 29.04.2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar by allowing this Criminal Original Petition and to permit the petitioner/accused to recall P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 for the purpose of cross examination.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar in Crl.M.P.No.10880 of 2015 in C.C.No.11 of 2014 dated 29.04.2016. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/accused to recall P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 for cross-examination. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has failed to cross-examine those witnesses when they were examined in chief and unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!