Chennai Court March 2006 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.
V.K. Sukumaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2(2007)BC164
ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order under Section 69(1) of the Transfer of Property Act and in W.P.M.P. No. 5769 of 2006. the petitioner has prayed for an interim injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from in any way bringing the property situated at Old D. No. 57, New No. 126, Panchaliamman Koil Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106 to sale on 28.2.2006 or any other subsequent dates.2. The petitioner's mother, along with 2 others, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 14 lakh from the 2nd respondent in the year 1997. Out of the said sum of Rs. 14 lakh, the petitioner had paid only Rs. 1 lakh as on date. The amount due from the petitioner is Rs. 96,32.615.60. Earlier, everytime, when a notice for auction was issued to him for payment of the defaulted amount on 8.1.2002,16.4.2002, 15.6.2002,7.10.2002, 30.10.2003 and finally on 28.2.2006, after receipt of the notices, the petitioner had filed O.S. Nos. 85/2002 (subsequently withdrawn), 164/2002, 1372/2002, 1772/ 2002, ...
K.S. Kumar and Ananda Kumar @ Anand Vs. State by Additional Superinten ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2309
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petition is filed by the 10th and 11th accused in PRC No. 2 of 2005 seeking direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram to furnish Tamil translated copy of the final report as well as 63 other documents which are found in English language.2. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram has chosen to turn down the request of the petitioners herein relying upon the two recent decisions rendered by this Court.3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram had already furnished copies of the documents found cited in the final report, but the petitioners would contend that they, being Tamilians, want the final report as well as the 63 other documents in English in the language of Tamil for better understanding of the case as against them and for better appreciation of the course of trial.4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the Official Languages Act, 1956 and the Government order passed by the...
G. Gopal and Etc. Vs. G. Nagarathinam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad28
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. The Applicant/Third Party has filed this Application to revoke the Grant or Probate dated 5 8 2002 of the Will dated 25-12-1984 in T.O.S. No. 32 of 1999.2. For better appreciation of the points linked by the Applicant/Third Parly, it is necessary to refer lo the earlier proceedings. The parties are related as under:(See related Parties under)Ramakrishna chetty | died in 1993 __________________________|_______________________________________| | | | |Jamuna Hemavathy Nagarathinam Chandrayya Gopal ________|__________ (predeceased) (D-1) (D-2) (Plaintiff)| |Baskar Sadhana(Applicant)3. T.O.P. No. 689 of 1993: - Ramakrishna Chetty died on 2-5-1993. The Deceased-Ramakrishna Chetty had executed the Will dated 25-12-1984 in the presence of two witnesses. According lo the petitioner, the deceased bequeathed immovable properly viz., front upstair portion of premises bearing Door No. 26, Solaianiman Roil Street. Madras-7 in favour of his First Son viz., Chandrayya. The upst...
Muthammal (Died) and T. Periyasami Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ216
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below is the appellant herein.2. During the pendency of this appeal, the first appellant/plaintiff died and his legal representative, the second appellant has been brought on record. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the schedule mentioned suit property. According to the plaintiff she purchased suit first and second items of the properties from his vendor Palaniandi under Ex.A.1, dated 14.1.1945 for a sale consideration of Rs. 25/=. In respect of suit third item, he has been in adverse possession since purchase of suit first and second. As the defendants are attempting to take possession of the suit properties, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the reliefs stated as above.3. The second defendant in his written statement which has been adopted by the first defendant,has stated that the first and second items of the suit properties did not belong to even Pal...
V. Arunachalam Vs. V.V. Govindasamy Mudaliar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC739; (2006)2MLJ257
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The tenant, who lost his case before the courts below is the appellant in this second appeal. The first respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 204 of 1981 before the District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai praying for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent and for damages. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and on appeal, the first appellate court confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, hence, the present second appeal.2. Before the trial court, the first respondent herein has marked Exs. A1 to A3 and examined his son, third respondent herein as PW1. The appellant herein has not marked any document, however, he examined himself as DW1. The trial court originally appointed an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property and the advocate commissioner has also filed his report and sketch dated 31.08.1981, which were marked as Exs. C1 and C2. Subse...
Ganesan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC831
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.96 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Erode, and the appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed to the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C.2. The brief facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- (a) P. W. 1 Vijaya is the victim girl aged about 13 years and studied upto sixth standard at the time of occurrence. P. W. 3 is the mother of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 is brother of P.W. 3. P. W. 1 attained puberty. Parvathi is the elder sister of the accused and is residing as a tenant in the house of senior paternal uncle Chandran of P.W. 1. The accused used to come to the house of his sister Parvathi frequently and give chocolates to P.W. 1 whenever she used to go to fetch water and to school. On 25.11.1996 a...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Principal Chief Post Master General, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ552
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and other subordinate officers against the order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 457 of 2005. The said Original Application was filed by the present Respondent No. 1, challenging the order of removal dated 05.09.2000, removing him from the post of SG Mailman under the present petitioner No. 2. The order of removal was passed on the ground that the concerned employee had remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period, without taking any prior permission and without filing any application. In the departmental proceedings, initially the employee had remained absent. But, subsequently, after he had appeared, he had not taken any specific stand, but simply admitted his absence and had prayed for lenience. However, the departmental authority thought it fit to remove him from service. Thereafter, the Orig...
S. Karthikeyanh Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas95(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 14-5-2001 and 01-8-2001 refusing to release the documents furnished as collateral security and direction to clear the overdues, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to release the property of the petitioner in Survey No. 704/6 and 704/7 in Modakurichi village, Erode Taluk, Erode District with an extent of 1.30 acres. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he started a partnership firm in the year 1991 pursuant to the registered partnership deed entered into between himself and one Anbuchelian by virtue of partnership deed executed on 25-01-1991. The said firm has been established in doing business in tyre retreading. A loan has been obtained from the first respondent to a tune of Rs. 14,15,000/-. The said firm had registered Mortgage Deed on 6-5-1992 along with an equitable mortgage, hypothec...
S.R. Balasubramaniyan, M.L.A. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC129; (2006)2MLJ244
ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. The Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu passed the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Second Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 15 of 2005) amending the provision of Section 239(2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. This Act received the assent of the Governor on 12th October, 2005, and was published in the Government Gazette on 13th October, 2005. Before we notice the amendment made in the 1994 Act, by the said Amending Act, it may be appropriate to notice the provision of Section 239(2)(b) as it stood before the amendment. Section 239(2)(b) provides that the State Election Commissioner shall hold Office for a term of two years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment for two successive terms. The first proviso to Section states that no person shall hold office of the State Election Commissioner for more than six years in the aggregate. The second proviso states that the person appointed as the State Election Commissioner shall retire from office, if he complet...
K. Subramanian Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasuries ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ267
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to pay the sum of Rs.67,935/- to him forthwith, as per the sanction order dated 19.9.2005 of the second respondent along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of first sanction order dated 5.11.2003.2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows.(a) Petitioner is working in the third respondent school, which is a fully aided school and getting 100% grant-in-aid from the Government of Tamil Nadu. He was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 15.3.1973 and was later promoted as Tamil Pandit in the year 1995. (b) The Government of Tamil Nadu framed a medical scheme called the 'Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme' during the year 1992 with an object to provide financial assistance to the Government servants/employees of the Aided Educational Institutions, in case of major ailments ei...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »