Chennai Court June 2003 Judgments
Azhagesan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 2005CriLJ294
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1.The appellant, who was the sole accused in S.C. No. 53 of 2000 on the file of the Tribunal Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, was tried for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 302, I.P.C., but was convicted only under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/in default to undergo R.I. for one month. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.2. The facts in brief are as follows :'(a) The accused is the husband of the deceased Uma Maheshwari. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is the wife of the younger brother of P.W. 1, who hailed from Kamampattu village. The deceased and the accused got married on 3-10-1996 and they were living in the house of P.W. 1 for some time. The accused wanted to live separately, for which, P.W. 1 was not willing and objected to it, over which, dispute arose between the husband and wife, which resulted in filing a complaint at All Women Police...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushila Vs. Nihalchand Nahata
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad18
A.K. Rajan, J. 1. This suit for specific performance was filed originally against one defendant. Since he died pending suit, his legal representatives were added as defendants-1 to 4.2. The plaint averments are as follows :The plaintiff intended to start an Educational Society with various teaching institutions; she was in search of suitable extent of vacant land to start the institution. While so. the original defendant represented to her that he is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property, having purchased the property in public auction held by Murrey and Company on 12-11-1975, under a registered sale deed; he further represented that a portion of the said property together with the bungalow and the appurtenant land was already sold to one Saraswathy Kailasam under a registered deed of sale, dated 29-3-1984 and the balance of the land to the extent of 9 acres 50 cents were available and it was free from all encumbrances and he was ready and willing to sell the land for a sum ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mohan Doss, Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ601
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1010 of 1993 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai, have filed the present second appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.186 of 1995 dated 27.07.1999 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court. 2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs / appellants filed a suit for declaration that they belong to KATTUNAYAKAN community and direct the defendants to issue a Certificate accordingly. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are sons and daughter of one Anthony. The 6th plaintiff is the mother. Thiru Anthony was appointed as Havildhar in central Excise Department under the category of Scheduled Tribe. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 have also obtained a certificate from the Tahsildar, Madurai North showing that they belong to KATTUNAYAKAN community and they were also enjoying the benefits pursuant to the certificate. In fact, the 6th plaintiff was also allotted a house under the category of Scheduled Tribe. She also contes...
Tag this Judgment!R. Manoharan Vs. Syndicate Bank Rep. by the Chairman and Managing Dire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ332
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By proceedings of the second respondent dated 18.2.2002, impugned in the above writ petition, the petitioner was informed that his application under VRS 2000 Scheme is not accepted, as he is not eligible for the same as per Clause 3 of Eligibility criterion of Annexure I of the Syndicate Bank Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 2. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in reference No. PD PAD GEN 2066 0087 244110 dated 18.2.2002 read with consequential order in ref. No. HD: PD: PAD (O): 0087:2345 dated 14.9.2002 and quash the said orders of the second respondent dated 18.2.2002 and 14.9.2002 and consequently direct the respondents to accept the application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement under Syndicate Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000.3. Clause 3 of Annexure I of the Syndicate Bank Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme reads as follows.' Following Cat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›