Chennai Court August 2000 Judgments
Veerabharathi and Etc. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4236
V.S. Sirpurkar, j.1. This judgment shall dispose of Referred Trial No. 2 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 872, 939 and 925 of 1999 as all the matters emanate out of the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilluputhur in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1999 in which the appellants in the above criminal appeals were the accused. The trial Court has convicted all the three accused of the offences under Section 376, I.P.C. as also under Section 302, I.P.C. and other allied offences. The trial Court has awarded death sentence to all the three appellants in the three appeals. Referred trial No. 2 of 1999 is in respect of the death sentence so awarded. For the sake of convenience, the appellants shall be referred to by their original accused numbers, they being Veerabharathi as first accused, Rahmathullah as second accused and Elango alias Murugan as third accused.2. The prosecution story in short, as is revealed from the evidence, is that one Subalakshmi, a student ...
Tag this Judgment!L.S. Mariappan, 205 Dindigul Road, Madurai-1 Vs. Kuppamuthu and 6 Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC405
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. One L. Palanichami Chettiar and his wife Kaveri Ammal had two sons by name L.P. Lakshmanan Chettiar and P. Shanmugam alias Palani Chami Chettiar. Thiru L.P. Lakshmanan Chettiar had two sons by name P.L.Shanmugam alias Palanichami and Chellam alias Subbaiah. Thiru P.L. Shanmugam alias Palanichami, the elder son of L.P.Lakshmanan Chettiar had six sons namely, 1. Kuppamuthu; 2. Lakshmanan 3. Chellam alias Palanichami; 4. Subbaiah, 5.Pechimuttu and 6.Shanmugam. Thiru Lakshmanan son of P.L.Shanmugam alias Palanichami had four sons namely I. Palani Chami, 2. Pechimuttu, 3. Subramanian and 4.Narayanan. The younger son of P. Lakshmanan Chettiar namely Thiru Chellam alias Subbaiah got 6ne son by name L.S.Mariappan, whose paternity was questioned by P.L.Shanmugam alias Palanichami, and others. Besides the younger son of the late L.Palanichami Chettiar and Kaveri Ammal namely P.Shanmugam alias Palanichami Chettiar had one son by name Tanga...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamedpura Parimala Sunnath Jamath Masjid and Jamila Madarasa Committ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC46
ORDER1. The second respondent in W.O.P.No.3 of 1999 filed I.A.No.89 of 1999 before the Principal Subordinate Judge. Salem, under Order 26, Rule 1 C.P.C. praying, for appointment of a commissioner to examine the first defendant. The suit has been filed for a declaration of the title of the plaintiff, the respondent in the revision, to the suit properties on the ground that the suit property was given to him by his mother, the first defendant, by way of oral gift. Hibba. and for consequential injunction. The suit was later converted as W.O.P. It was the contention of the first defendant that she gave no oral gift of the property to the petitioner in W.O.P. In the said W.O.P... the second respondent took a plea that the property was actually settled in his favour by the first defendant. The Wakf Tribunal Authority, Salem, before whom the I.A. was filed to examine the first defendant, came to the conclusion that since there is no proof for the 'inability of the first defendant, who is aged...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamanickam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC230
ORDER1. The 4th accused in S.T.C.No.9 of 1997 on the file of the Special Court for E.C/N.D.P.S Act cases, Coimbatore, Periyar and Nilgiris Coimbatore described as an 'authorised dealer' of fair prior shop No.2 represented by Nagamanickam, President, Udumalpet Co-operative Marketing Society, Dharapuram Road, Udumalpet is the petitioner herein. A1 to A3 in that S.T.C. are the respective employees of the Society. 2. A complaint was lodged alleging violation of Clause 6(2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, in that A1 to A3 short measured kerosene to witnesses. The complaint also shows that there was an excess stock of eight litres in the stock of the Society itself. The complaint specifically avers that A1 to A3 are responsible for the violation and the President of the 4th Accused Society was not even available at the time of the check. In the face of the above undisputed facts, the revision petitioner moved an applica...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal M. Vs. Management of State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ808Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Mr. R.P. Kabilan, takes notice on behalf of the Respondent.2. By proceedings dated December 18, 1999, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground that he is not medically fit to hold the post of Driver in the respondent Corporation. Even though the petitioner seeks to quash the said order of dismissal dated December 18, 1999, Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner restricts the prayer to the extent that the petitioner seeks only an alternative employment in the light of the G.O. Ms. No. 86 dated February 8, 1996 wherein the Government has directed that if any Driver is declared unfit for continuance in the same post by doctors because of eye defect or any other ailment, he will be provided with alternative employment in posts like Helpers or office Assistants depending upon their qualification by retaining the same pay scale.2. It is also brought to my notice that the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Chandla v....
Tag this Judgment!N.G. Balaraman Vs. Sub Inspector of Police G8, Sithamoor Ps Kancheepur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC340
ORDERJudgment pronounced by S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the father of the girl Saritha (a) Valli. The grievance of the petitioner is that his daughter had been kidnapped forcibly by the fourth respondent Arvamudhu and is being detained by him against her wish. 2. Today, the girl Saritha (a) Valli as well as the fourth respondent have appeared before this court. The petitioner and his brother are also present. The elder brother of the fourth respondent is also present. As the age of the girl is 17 years and 9 months, being a minor, we were compelled to enquire all the persons in order to find out a solution. The girl is very adamant and without any hesitation, has replied that she married the fourth respondent Arvamudhu and is living with him at Trichy. The fourth respondent is employed in carpentry work and could able to maintain her and both are living together happily. She is not willing to go along with the petitioner her father. 3. In fact, the paternal uncle of the girl ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallika Vs. State by Inspector of Police, B-north Police Station, Madu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC654
ORDERJudgment pronounced by N. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellant is the first accused and in this judgment she will be referred to as 'A.1' for the sake of convenience. She was tried along with the other accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai in Sessions Case No.190 of 1989. The charge against the first accused under charge No.1 is under Section 302, I.P.C. with an allegation that at 2.00 P.M. on 5.7.1987, she administered medicine in large quantity with a view to cause his death to her husband Natarajan, as a result of which, the said Natarajan died at about 4.00 P.M. on the same day. The second accused was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C. for abetting the said commission of the offence of the first accused. The learned Sessions Judge, while convicting the first accused and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life, acquitted the second accused. Hence, the present appeal by the first accused.2. Shorn o...
Tag this Judgment!Vadamaduraipandian Vs. N. Susila Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC401
ORDER1.This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 1.4.99 made in RCA No.77 of 1997 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Madurai confirmed in the order dated 18.9.97 made in RCOP No.70 of 1988 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town. The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the tenant in RCOP No.70 of 1988.2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground that she is the owner of the premises at Door No.23, Munichalai Road. Madurai Town. It is stated in the petition that the building was leased to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.300 payable on or before the 5th of every succeeding months. The building is more than 60 years old. The landlord purchased the building in the year 1981. The building is in dilapidated condition and therefore immediate demolition is necessary. It is further stated that the landlord has sufficient mea...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Nallammal Vs. Dhanshkodi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC513
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.200 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Melur, is the appellant in the second appeal. She filed the suitfor specific performance of an agreement for sale between herself and the respondent. Her case was as follows:On 25.4.1983 the respondent executed a sale agreement in respect of the suit property in her favour agreeing to sell the property of Rs.6,000 received Rs.5,000 as advance on the date of agreement and further agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property within a period of three years after receiving the balance amount of Rs.1,000 from her. It was further agreed that if the respondent failed to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance amount within the stipulated period, he should surrender possession of the property to her. He also further agreed to give half share of the produce from the suit properly till he executed the sale deed in her favour. Inspite of the repeated demands made by her, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Ramiah Vs. Manickavasagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC675
ORDER1. The defendant in O.S.No.266 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam, is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit against the appellant for recovery of moneys due under a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the appellant on 27.4.1984. 2. The defence set up by the appellant was that he had not received any amount from the respondent; he had not executed any promissory note in his favour; his signature had been forged and the suit promissory note had been created. The further case of the appellant was that the respondent was having a cloth shop. The appellant had introduced many customers to him. Hisbusiness had become dull and he was under the impression that only at the instigation of the appellant, the customers were not purchasing from his shop. The respondent had therefore come forward with the false claim. 3. The learned District Munsif framed the necessary issues and on the basis of the materials produced, held ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »