Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
R.R. Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal Vs. State, Represented by Inspector of P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC605
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. In Crl.O.P. No. 4254 of 2003, the petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest, in the case in Crime No. 676 of 1998 on the file of Inspector of Police, Anthiyur Police Station, Erode District.2. The same petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 4255 of 2003 has sought for anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest, in the case in Crime No. 1500 of 1998 of B-1 Police Station, Coimbatore.3. Since the petitioner in both the petitions is one and the same and the averments in both the petitions are similar, they were heard together and a common order is passed.4. The averments in both the petitions are summarised below. The prosecution case in Crime No. 676 of 1998 is that on 23.11.1998 one Saravanan, son of Kandhavelu, gave a report stating that his father was missing and a case was registered as 'man missing' and later, based on the statement of one Muthukrishnan on 23.4.1999, the case was altered to Sections 147, 148, 302 and 201, I.P.C. read with ...
M. Ramachandran Vs. the State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3376
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12.6.1996 made in S.C.C. No. 118 of 1990 of the learned Special Judge-cum-I Additional District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, convicting the first accused who was facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, and with rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act; and acquitting the second accused, who was facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act.2.2. Assailing the judgment of conv...
Shankaran Narayan Vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC482
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellants in the appeal stand convicted in S.C. No. 514/2001 on the file of the Additional Court of Sessions, Tuticorin, for offences under Section 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. (5 counts) and Section 307 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. For the offence of murder, each one of them stands sentenced to be hanged till their death and for the other offence, each one of them stands sentenced to undergo 7 years RI. Consequent to imposing death sentence, the Court of Sessions made a reference to this Court and it is R.T. No. 2/2003. The convicted accused have also filed a separate appeal namely C.A. No. 204/2003. Since both the proceedings arise out of one sessions case, we are inclined to dispose of the same by this common judgment. Heard the learned counsel on either side.2. For convenience sake, we will refer to the five deceased in this case D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 and D-5. D-5 is the wife of D-1 and D-4 is their daughter. D-2 is the younger brother of D-1 while D-3 is the ...
S. Kasi Vs. the Secretary/Correspondent, A.V.M. Marimuthu Nadar Higher ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC129
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner, who was a teacher in the first respondent school, has come forward with the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 12.8.97 made in Mo.Mu. No. 89965/D4/97 dated 12.8.97 and directed the respondents to re-employ the petitioner from 1.7.97 till the end of the academic year.2. Heard Mr. Dhanabalan, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Fenn Walter, for the petitioner, Mr. Joseph Thatheus Jerome, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Ms. V. Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3.3. The contention advanced in this writ petition lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner, who was employed in the first respondent school, has to demit office on 30.6.97 on his completing 58 years. The petitioner approached the respondent with a request that he be permitted to continue till the end of ...
George Thomas Vs. Smt. Srividya and the Tax Recovery Officer Iv(1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad290; 2003(1)CTC705; (2003)1MLJ823
D. Murugesan, J. 1. All these appeals arise from the common judgment dated 08.06.1998 made in C.S. Nos. 866 of 1994, 485 of 1997 and 1505 of 1995. 2. For the purpose of convenience, Smt. Srividya will be referred to as 'the plaintiff' and Mr. George Thomas will be referred to as 'the defendant' and the Tax Recovery Officer IV, Madras - 34 will be referred to as the 'second defendant'. 3. The facts leading to the filing of C.S. No. 866 of 1994 and as pleaded in the plaint are as follows:-The plaintiff by name Smt. Srividya is a film artist. She married the defendant on 19.01.1978. Out of her earnings as an actress in films, she purchased a vacant land at No. 7, Narayanan Street, Mahalingapuram, Madras 600 034 to an extent of two grounds and 1964 sq.ft., from one Mrs. R.M. Sarojini by a registered sale deed dated 21.04.1983. After obtaining permission from the Corporation of Madras in the year 1985, she put up a construction on the said vacant land in the year 1986. The property is asses...
Kamalammal Vs. Minor Senthil,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad337; (2003)1MLJ756
1. The sixth defendant in O.S. No. 69 of 1985 is the appellant in the second appeal. 2. Originally, the suit was filed by the first and second respondents/minors represented by their mother and natural guardian Annammai. The respondents 3 to 7 herein were the defendants. The said suit was filed for a judgment and decree of partition of the joint family properties comprised in item nos.1 to 4 and for allotment of 1/3rd share to the first respondent and another 1/3rd share to the second respondent in this appeal. The third respondent Narayana Pillai is the father of the first and second respondents and he is entitled to 1/3rd share of the joint family properties. Pending the suit, the sixth defendant viz., the appellant was impleaded on 27.2.86 since she purchased item No. 1 of the suit properties through Court auction held on 28.2.85 and is in possession from August 1985. The suit was decreed by the trial Court in respect of item nos.2 to 4 of the suit properties and the relief of parti...
M. Virudhagiri and United India Insurance Company Vs. Elangovan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC608; 2003(2)CTC603
D. Murugesan , J. 1. Heard both the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 2. The appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance company challenging the award of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court, Virudachalam) dated 13.6.2001 made in M.C.O.P. NO. 227/1999.3. The respondent filed the said Original Petition seeking for a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the Motor Accident, wherein the bus, belonging to the first appellant, insured with the second appellant, was involved. On considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.76,000/- towards permanent disability by taking into consideration 38% disability certified by P.W.2. The disability Certificate is also marked as Ex.A.1.4. In the appeal, the Insurance Company has questioned the quantum of compensation awarded towards permanent disability on the ground that though the permanent disability is assessed by the do...
Rajamani Vs. the Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2902
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner, who is a third party to the proceeding initiated by the first respondent in Cr. No. 32/2002 under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC and transferred to the file of the second respondent for investigation, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition on averments such as that he is having multifarious business activities of mining, purchase and sale of minerals under the names and styles of M/s. Abirami Mineralas and Chemicals, M/s. Sekar Mines and Sekar Sales Syndicate Etc. and the respondents 1 and 2, under the pretext of doing investigation in the said case on an alleged confession said to have been made by the prime accused in the said case viz. Prabhakaran that in order to over come certain difficulties, he paid a sum of Rs.16 lakhs to the petitioner, have given instructions to the banks to freeze the accounts of the petitioner, which, the petitioner came to know from the letters dated 14.9.2002 addressed by the Salem ...
B. Ranganathan Vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vigillance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2779
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner praying to set side the order passed by the first respondent to freeze the accounts of not only the petitioner but also his family members held with the second and third respondents, pending investigation in Cr. No. 13/2002 on averments such as that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the above crime number for the alleged offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is pending investigation with the first respondent; that the petitioner is a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elected from the Purasawalkam Assembly Constituency on behalf of the Tamil Maanila Congress Jana Nayaga Peravai; that the case has been foisted against him at the instance of the ruling party due to political animosity; that the first respondent conducted several raids at his house and business premises but was unable to unearth anything; that in such circums...
K.D. Menon and Sunil Pictures (P) Ltd. Vs. Panchitra Rep. by Its Partn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC671
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 9574 of 1976 on the file of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras are the appellants herein.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit contending that the first defendant firm is the producer of Malayalam talkie picture called 'Puthra Kameshti' and in respect of the distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the picture in the state of Kerala, the first defendant represented by its partners, entered into an agreement dated 1.9.1972 with the first plaintiff, who was the promoter of second plaintiff company, whereby the first defendant firm was advanced a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of loan, in consideration of which the first plaintiff was entitled to the sole, absolute and exclusive rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the picture for the said area for a period of seven years from the date of first release of the picture in the said area. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was also authorised to spe...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »