Chennai Court June 2000 Judgments
Siva Vs. State, Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4465
ORDERB. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. The only question that arises in this proceeding is whether the general diary maintained by the Police Control Room is a document falling within the purview of Section 172, Cr.P.C.2. Heard both the sides. Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recites as under :172. Diary of proceedings in investigation.(1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor s...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus. (Appls.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(121)ELT584(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 24-8-1992 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as time-barred, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :- The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it has registered office at Madras-2. The petitioner is carrying on business in the manufacture of Beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The petitioner had imported a fully automatic labelling machine from West Germany. In respect of the said automatic labelling machine, the petitioner had claimed classification of the machinery imported under Customs Tariff sub-heading 8422.30 and also claimed exemption under the above Tariff heading read with Customs Exemption Notification No. 125/86 dated 17-2-1986 as amended. However, the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed W.P. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Link Building, Airport, Thirusulam, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC243; [2001(88)FLR150]; (2000)IILLJ1033Mad
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by N.K.Jain, ACJ.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order of stay granted in W.M.P.No.27581 of 1999 in W.P.No.18879 of 1999 dated 30.12.1999.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:The Jet Airways (India) Ltd., is running air services throughout the country. It entered into an agreement on a contract of labour with M/s.Proteam from 11.7.1998 to 31.12.1999 and M/s.Team V Corporate Services, Chennai from 1.1.1999 to 31.12.1999 respondents 4 and 5 respectively, for doing services like loading, unloading, driving, operating certain ground services equipments, etc.,3. The petitioners-sangam in W.P.No.18879 of 1999 on 24.11.1999 filed writ petition contending that the workers of the sangam had worked for about 3 to 5 years and since there was a demand from the workers for 20% bonus, the third respondent- management has terminated the services of 100 workers. They also alleged that the 3rd responden...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Basha Alias Rajesh Vs. the State Rep. by the Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC8
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner is detained as a goonda by detention order dated 16.9.1999 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Heard the learned counsel on either side.2. After hearing the learned counsel at length on more than one point, we are inclined to dispose of the habeas corpus petition in favour of the detenu on only one ground, namely the Honourable Members of the Advisory Board having refused to permit the detenu to have an assistant with him at the time of personal hearing despite request. It may be noticed here that there areas many as 17 adverse cases stated to have taken place during the period from June, 1999 to August, 1999. The ground case is stated to have taken place on 5.9.1999. The arrest of the detenu is shown to have been done in the ground case first and consequently in all the adverse cases later on. In the backdrop of the above facts it appears that the detenu was asked to appear before the Advisory Board for personal hea...
Tag this Judgment!Viduthalai Chiravasi Punar Vazhvu, Sangam, Nellai Vs. the State of Tam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC1
ORDERJudgment pronounced by N.K. Jain1. This matter filed on the basis of the telegram, has been placed before the Division Bench during vacation and has come up before us today.2. It is alleged in the telegram that prisoners in the Palayamkottai central Jail are agitating with indefinite fasting from 29.5.2000, human rights are denied by jailers, dictatorship and arrogant activities are imposed on the prisoners by the Jailers, lakhs and lakhs of rupees are swindled by the jailers in distributing the food to the prisoners and basic hygiene and needs are demanded by the prisoners.3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that, on the face of it, such a telegram should not be entertained. He relied on a decision of this court in M.G.Shivaraj v. The Inspector of Police, Thuraipakkam, Police Station, 1993 LW (Cri) 656 wherein this court, while deciding HCP registered on the basis of telegram as writ, observed that the practice of sending telegrams is not only misused, but is grossly abused. It ...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Ethirajulu Vs. Rekha Malini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC240
ORDERA. Raman, J. 1. Considering the nature of the petition, I am of the view that it is not necessary to order notice on the same to the respondents.2. The petitioner herein filed an application before the Family Court to furnish him with the certified copies of the petition in F.C.O.P. No. 1343 of 1997, the decretal order passed in F.C.O.P. No. 1343 of 1997 and the judgment in F.C.O.P. No. 1343 of 1997.3. It is seen that a complaint has been registered against Ethirajulu, Lakshmi Ethirajulu, Sridhar and Balaji regarding dowry demand and stoppage of marriage. The petitioner herein is thus arrayed as the first accused in the said complaint. The complainant is the father of Rekha Malini. The complaint was with reference to the marriage proposal of the 4th accused viz., the son of the petitioner herein with the daughter of the complainant Rekha Malini, Rekha Malini has also been cited as a witness in the said complaint. Apparently, the proceeding was initiated by Rekha Malini against Bal...
Tag this Judgment!Nasir Alias Naser Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4335
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner is detained as a goonda by detention order dated 16-9-1999 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Heard the learned counsel on either side.2. After hearing the learned counsel at length on more than one point, we are inclined to dispose of the habeas corpus petition in favour of the detenu on only one ground, namely the Honourable Members of the Advisory Board having refused to permit the detenu to have an assistant with him at the time of personal hearing despite request. It may be noticed here that there are as many as 17 adverse cases stated to have taken place during the period from June, 1999 to August, 1999. The ground case is stated to have taken place on 5-9-1999. The arrest of the detenu is shown to have been done in the ground case first and consequently in all the adverse cases later on. In the backdrop of the above facts it appears that the detenu was asked to appear before the Advisory Board for personal hearing on 15-10-1999. In perso...
Tag this Judgment!Selvam Vs. Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3708
ORDERK. Natarajan, J.1. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had not been provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself and only on the plea of guilty he had been convicted. The fact that the revision petitioner/accused engaged an advocate and the plea of guilty had been filed through the advocate is not disputed. The learned counsel who appeared for the accused did not state before the trial Magistrate, he wanted to contest the case on the merits. On the other hand, he pleaded for a lenient sentence and the learned trial Judge imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A, IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 279, IPC.2. In the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, no conten...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesar and 15 Others Vs. Ramalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC468; I(2001)DMC196
ORDER1.The accused before the trial Court have come forward with the instant petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.2. The facts which had led to the institution of the instant proceedings briefly can be stated as follows:-The first petitioner Murugesan had a brother by name Paramasivam. The complainant before the trial Court Ramalakshmi was the wife of Paramasivam. In the lawful wedlock between Paramasivam and Ramalakshmi, a child was also born to them. Later, on 12.2.1994, Paramasivam died, leaving behind his young widow and the infant. Ramalakshmi wanted to marry the first petitioner Murugesan. But, he was not willing for such course. According to the first petitioner, he was forcibly taken to a place known as Sankarankovil on 27.3.1995 and was forced to sign in some papers and also to exchange garlands with Ramalakshmi in a temple. He was kept inside a room which was locked from outside. Ten days after such confin...
Tag this Judgment!S. Saravanan (Minor) Rep. by Mother and Next Friend A. Latha Vs. the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC677; 2000(3)CTC11; (2000)IIMLJ804
ORDER1. The petitioner herein filed an application to condone the delay of2134 days in representation of M.A.C.T.O.P.SR.No.28961 of 1993. Thepetitioner is a minor. He met with an accident on 11.3.1993. When theAutorickshaw TSD 5830 dashed against him white he was walking. In thataccident the petitioner who was a school going child aged about seven yearssustained fractures in his right leg. It is stated that on account of the injuriessustained the petitioner has been practically crippled and that he cannot lead anormal healthy life hereafter. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes,Chennai dismissed the petition filed on 29.2.2000 and aggrieved by the samethe present revision is filed.2. It is not a case of delay in presentations but it is only a case of delay in re-presentation. The Act has now amended and no limitation is prescribed for preferring a claim. In these circumstances, the petitioner's request ought to have been considered by the lower court on compassionate ground. Hypertec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »