Chennai Court May 1996 Judgments
D. Rajeswari Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3795
ORDER1. The great Tamil Saint Thiruvalluvar said :- 'The touch of children is the delight of the body; the delight of the ear is the hearing of their speech'. But, here is the case, where an unmarried girl of 13 years has been knocking at the doors of this Court, the highers forum of the State, praying for issue of a direction to terminate the pregnancy of the child in her womb, on the ground that bearing the unwanted pregnancy of the child of three months made her to become mentally ill and the continuance of pregnancy has caused great anguish in her mind, which would result in a grave injury to her mental health, since the pregnancy was caused by rape. 2. The petitioner D. Rajeswari, belongs to Scheduled Caste. Her father is an agricultural coolie. However, she strived hard to pursue her studies and completed her S.S.L.C. She is residing at Cheeyur Colony village, near Arakonam. She joined + 1 in the Adi-dravidar Welfare Higher Secondary School, Arakonam. Being a day Scholar, she use...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Premananda Alias Premkumar Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3884
ORDER1. The petitioner who is an accused in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1996, on the file of principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, has filed this petition for bail pending trial. On more than one occasion, the bail petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court. The petitioner has filed special Leave Petition No. 448 of 1996, before the Supreme Court, against such dismissal order made by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 7726 of 1995, on 5-12-1995 2. Though, it was argued in detail by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, before the Supreme Court, ultimately the S.L.P. was not pressed, since the Apex Court did not incline to disturb the order passed by this court. The order of the Supreme Court, dated 1-3-1996, in the said S.L.P. is as follows :- 'Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he wants an opportunity, to argue the bail matter afresh before the trial Court. He may do so. We have no doubt that the trial Court shall not be influenc...
Tag this Judgment!Nallam Krishnaraya Babu and Others Vs. the State Rep. by Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4484
ORDER1. This unnumbered revision petition has been filed against the endorsement of return made by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ulundurpet, on 10-5-1996, returning the petition filed by the petitioners herein against the proposed identification parade to be held on 10-5-1996. 2. As the Registry felt this revision is not maintainable, since the endorsement of return made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ulundurpet, is not a Judicial order, which could be challenged in revision before this Court, with regard to the question of maintainability, the matter has been posted before this Court. 3. When the matter came up on 15-5-1996, this Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. I. Subramaniam, to take notice for considering the question of maintainability. 4. Mr. M. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, police officers of Pondicherry are arrayed as accused in a rape case and were summoned by the learne...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ilango and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Union Territory of Pondic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ275
ORDERSub:- Legislative Assembly Department - Engagement of Daily Rated Casual Labourers -Appointment orders - issued.Thiru A. Illango, is appointed as Daily rated Casual Labourer in the Legislative Assembly - Department, Pondicherry, against the existing vacancy with effect from the forenoon of June, 22, 1990.He will be paid wages in accordance with the rates prescribed G.O. Ms. No. 32/90F3, dated 10-4-1990 of the Finance Department, Pondicherry.He is informed that the appointment is purely on daily wages basis and his services are liable to be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason therefor.Sd/- (S. RAMAMOORTHY)Editor of Debates.As seen above, the appointment was purely on daily wages basis and the services of the petitioners are likely to be terminated at any time without prior notice and without assigning any reason therefor. The petitioners were paid Rs. 43 as their wages for a days work. Ever since their appointment they had worked most sincerely wi...
Tag this Judgment!E. Venkatesan and Others Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad64
ORDER1. This Writ Petitions filed by four petitioners, who claim to be joint owners of O.39-5 hectares of lands in Survey No. 338/3. It is said that the land originally belonged to their mother Bhoopathi Ammal, and, on her death, the property devolved on them. It is said that having regard te the nature of interest the petitioners have got in the land, the only remedy open to the petitioners is recourse to Court by filing a joint petition. It is said that all the petitioners are co-owners of an extent of 1-52-0 hectares and the income therefrom is the only source of livelihood. It is said that there is no proceeding for land acquisition regarding the extent of 0-39-5 hectares of land or any other proceedings by the State to acquire the same for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It is said that during the last week of November, 1995, men working under respondents 2 and 3, unlawfully entered into Survey No. 338/3 and dug pits for erecting poles in order to draw electric wires/...
Tag this Judgment!T. Kanniah Rao Vs. Inder Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC466
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. The case of plaintiff is as follows: Krishna Bai, widow of late Bharamji Rao died on 7.8.1982 at Madras, possessed of the properties. While she was alive she executed a will on 19.1.1982 at Madras in the presence of the attestors who have attested the same. As per the provisions of the will the petitioner is the sole legatee and beneficiary being the husband's brother's son and after the death of Krishna Bai the plaintiff had fallen ill and was not in a position to apply to the Hon'ble Court. Hence the suit.2. The defendant has filed the written statement pleading thus:It is true that Krishna Bai died at Madras on 7.8.1982. Krishna Bai could not have executed the will as she was bed-ridden, ill and unconscious. She was not in a sound on state of mind prior to the date of the alleged will. Thumb impression had been obtained without the knowledge and consent of Krishna Bai, apparently when she was in unconscious state of mind. By playing fraud upon the deceased the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Ammal Vs. Ganapathi Konar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC243; (1996)IIMLJ377
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The revision is filed by the decree-holder in O.S.No.324 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur.2. The suit filed by the decree-holder was one for declaration of title and other reliefs. In the suit, there are three defendants. For reasons better known to the plaintiff, during trial, one of the defendants was removed from the party array. Later, the suit was decreed as prayed for, when execution was proceeded, defendant who was removed from the party array, filed the present application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that he is entitled to one half of the property for which decree has been granted in favour of the plaintiff. He said that he is entitled to the northern 47 cents on the basis of partition deed entered into before institution of the suit, and that since he is not a party to the proceedings, the decree is not binding on him.3. The maintainability of the application was challenged by the decree-holde...
Tag this Judgment!S. Nagarajan Vs. Mariammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ334
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff has preferred this revision against the order dated 19.1.1996 in 1.A. No. 707 of 1995 in O.S. No. 94 of 1995 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram. The said I.A. was by a third party to the suit, the 1st respondent herein, for impleading herself in the suit as 2nd defendant. The 2nd respondent herein is the defendant- Municipality in the suit. By the abovesaid impugned order, the I.A. was allowed, and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this revision.2. Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered on 23.2.1996. I have heard both the counsel.3. The suit is for declaration of plaintiffs title to the suit property and for a mandatory injunction, directing the 2nd respondent- Municipality to change the house tax records for the suit property in the plaintiff's name and also for a permanent injunction restraining the municipality from changing the house tax records in the name of any other person.4. According to the affidavit in support of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›