Chennai Court April 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.
Chellathal Vs. Veerappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2818
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant, wife of the deceased, and this revision is filed against the acquittal of the respondents / A-1 to A-4 in respect of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. III), Dharapuram, in S.C. No. 51 of 2003 as per judgment dated 30.10.2003.2. The facts that led to the filing of this revision are as follows:(a) The first accused is the father of A-2 and A-3 and A-4 is the co-brother of A-2. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. The accused and the deceased are neighbouring land owners and close relatives. The deceased was working at Vellakovil in a Finance Company. There was some dispute in respect of enjoyment of land one day prior to the occurrence and during that time, A-1 to A-3 armed with Aruval criminally intimidated the deceased. (b) On 02.9.2002 at 9.00 A.M., while the deceased was proceeded to Vellakovil ...
C. Nagamuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ747
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.60,039/- as reimbursement towards the medical expenses of the petitioner's son, who underwent heart surgery in the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows.(a) Petitioner joined as a Head Messenger in the Public Works Department on 3.7.1971 and retired from the service on 28.2.2005 as Works Inspector. The petitioner is a native of Muthalakurichi in Kanyakumari District. In the year 1998, while he was working as Works Inspector under the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Building Construction and Maintenance Division, Nagercoil, viz., the 5th respondent herein petitioner's son Saravanan suddenly fell sick and he had to undergo an urgent heart surgery during April, ...
Best Enterprises Vs. S. Elanchizian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad274; IV(2007)BC12
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to permit the applicant to operate the bank account in Current A/c. No. 3052 held with the 2nd respondent/garnishee.2. Original Application No. 845/2005 has been filed under Section 9 of the Act for an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent from in any manner either by himself or through his agents, servants or any one claiming through him from interfering with the administration and management of the firm M/s. Best Enterprises, pending disposal of Application No. 3130/ 05.3. The applicant is a partnership firm represented by its managing partner. The firm was constituted in pursuance of a partnership deed dated 7-11-1999 in which there are four partners. The firm is carrying on business of supplying of all kinds of bolts and nuts and railway track tools to various dealers. In the year 2005, a deed of codicil w...
Nachammal Vs. Lavangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC418; 2006(3)CTC543; (2006)2MLJ709
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The order rejecting the Application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC to implead the petitioner/third party as a party in the preliminary decree proceedings is challenged in this revision petition. 2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent for partition on 23.3.1973. One of the items, viz., Item No. 19 has been sold to the petitioner/third party on 30.6.1973 by the second defendant. However, the second defendant did not make any mention about the same in the written statement filed by him before the trial Court. In the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, the petitioner/third party is not made a party, even though the property in question was purchased by her from the second defendant on 30.6.1973. Ultimately, the suit was decreed and preliminary decree came to be passed on 26.7.1982. Now the final decree proceedings are pending. At this stage, an Application has been filed by the petitioner/third party in I.A.No.881 of 2005 seeking for a dir...
L. Jegannath and J. Thulasidaran Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC809; (2006)3MLJ196
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above Review Applications have been filed to review the order dated 05.03.2003 passed in CMP Nos. 648 and 759 of 2003 in A.S.Nos.132 and 133 of 2001 respectively.2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the Review Applicants are as follows:(i) One Mr. M.Kullamma Naicker owned 445 acres in Balasamudhram Village, Palani Taluk. On 23.12.1959 he sold the lands to M/s. Narendra Diary Farm Private Limited, the fifth Respondent herein for a total consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/-. But only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- alone was paid and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,65,000/- was withheld as unpaid sale consideration. On 30.03.1960, the fifth respondent herein, re-conveyed 31.79 acres out of 445 acres for Rs. 16,000/- and the said sum of Rs. 16,000/- was adjusted out of the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,65,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- was the unpaid sale consideration. According to the Review Applicants, after the death of Kullamma Na...
Arasu Viraivu Pokkuvarathu Oozhiyar Sangam, Rep. by Its General Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ245Mad
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Appeal is admitted.2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties finally in this appeal. It is being disposed of by this judgment. 3. The question involved in this appeal at the instance of the Workmen's Union pertains to the legality and validity of the order of the first respondent Corporation, whereby the workmen have been reverted from the post of Data Entry Operators (DEO) to conductor/technical staff and calls for a decision as to whether the said order was in violation of Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity sake, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). A few relevant facts are required to be noted at this stage. 4. The appellant is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The first respondent is a company under Section 617 of the Companies Act, wholly owned, controlled and administered by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The respondent/Corporation is operating long distance passenger transport services a...
Sterlite Industries (India) Limited Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST389(Mad)
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Karunakar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Pandi, Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. By consent of the both the counsel, these petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are common, common order is being passed.2. These writ petitions are filed for a direction against the respondent to issue refund vouchers with interest to the petitioner under Section 24(4) of the TNGST Act, 1959, in pursuance of the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli, dated October 6, 2005.3. It is seen from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated October 6, 2005, that the appeals were allowed and the order passed by the respondent has been set aside. It is stated that pending above appeals, the petitioner was directed to pay certain amount of tax in the said application. Now that the appeals have been allowed and the respondent's order has ...
Selvakumar, Vs. the State Represented by Inspector of Police and V. In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT792
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioners who have accused of an offence under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, move this application seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 4463 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.3. Apart from the allegations which are not germane to the offence under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code it is contended that the accused herein, having refused to part with the dowry and stridhana property entrusted to the first accused at the time of marriage of the daughter of the defacto complainant with the first accused, threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, referring to the first information report in the background of 161 statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, would submit that there is no allegation to constitute the offence under Section 406 of th...
S. Gandhi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep., by Its Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ80
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order dated 21.04.2000 passed by the second respondent.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is that the petitioner was issued a charge memo on 21.04.2000 for the alleged lapses said to have been taken place in the year 1996. In the year 1996, when the petitioner was working as Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) at Kangeyam, the said charge memo was issued alleging four charges, namely,Charge No.1:That Thiru.S.Gandhi, formerly Special Tahsildar (ADW) recommended fixation of land value based on documents which were intentionally created for fixing exorbitant and inflated value in the following cases, against the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.146 Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare Department, dated 14.08.1995.Sl.NoName of the TalukVillageS.F.NoExtent proposed for P.N.S.T.S. File No. & Date1234561.DharapuramBommanallur216/12.04.0Hect.LA 5/996 A12.07.1996Sl.NoCollr's.File No.Do...
Ganesh Vs. Sankaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC28
ORDERP. Murgesen, J.1. The revision petitioner in both the revisions is the judgment debtor/defendant in O.S. No. 18 of 1998 and O.S. No. 15 of 1998. The respondents are the respective plaintiff in both the suits.2. The respondent/plaintiff in both the suits obtained decree in the said suits. After obtaining decree, they filed execution petitions respectively in E.P. Nos. 18 and 19 of 2005 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge. Kuzhithurai under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of Code of Civil Procedure to arrest the judgment debtor for realisation of the decree amount. The learned executing Court passed an order on 6.9.2005 ordering the arrest of the judgment debtor by 27.9.2005. The impugned order reads as follows:Part satisfaction for Rs. 15,000/- recorded. Arrest by 27.9.2005.Challenging the order of the executing Court, the judgment debtor in both the execution petitions, has filed the civil revision petitions.3. The case brings forcibly to mind the dictum of Their Lordships of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »