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.
Tmt. S. Ulagammal Vs. Inspector General of Registration and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad284
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. The petitioner seeks for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Proc. Tha. PA. No. 621/95, dated 11-4-2005 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to deliver the Sale Deed, dated 6-11-1995 registered as document No. 1253/1995.2. Facts in nutshell:The petitioner has purchased wet lands in S. Nos. 134/1A2, 314/1A5 total extent of 0.76 cents in Seithur Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District and the same was registered as document No. 1253/95 (6-11-1995, at Sub-Registrar's Office, Seithur. The guideline value of the land was Rs. 7.60/- per square feet, but the petitioner registered the land at Rs. 200/- per cent. In view of the difference of the market value, the document was referred by the Sub-Registrar to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Virudhunagar to fix the market value of the land in question under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. Form I notice was also issued to t...
Maluku Mohamed Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3339
P.D. Dinakaran, J.I-UNDER APPEAL1. The appellant is the sole accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') in Sessions Case No. 360 of 2003 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil: The accused questions the correctness of the judgment dated 31-1-2003 rendered in the above stated sessions case, whereunder he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 324, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341, I. P. C., imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302, I. P. C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324, I. P. C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.II-CHARGE2. The charge against the accused is that on 12-10-1999 at 6.45 a.m., he wrongfully restrained the deceased Samsudeen and his son, P. W. 1, which is punishable under Section 341, I. P. C., in the course of the s...
D. Prasanna Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ233
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 23-2-2006. The complaint inter alia reads that on 22-2-2006, One Sujatha rang up to the residence of the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, threatened her to settle the amount which was allegedly borrowed by her. It has been further contended in the complaint that the said Sujatha sent SMS to the friends of the petitioner using unparliamentary words. On 23-2-2006, the said Sujatha came along with three henchmen to the residence of the petitioner, shouted and threatened that she would defame the petitioner and would not permit her to live peacefully. There was further threat that the said Sujatha would attack the children, family members, parents and in-laws of the petitioner. The said Sujatha shouted at the petitioner using all unparliamentary words and heaped abuse on her. The grievance of the petitioner is that the life of the pe...
C. Dhanam Vs. A.M. Srinivasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad210; 2006(2)CTC444; [2007(1)JCR463(Mad)]; (2006)2MLJ275
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is as follows :Whether, in respect of a chit transaction, the starting point of limitation for filing a suit is from the date of default or from the date of termination of chit period2. The short facts are as follows :(i) A.M. Srinivasan, plaintiff/first respondent herein, carried on chit business. One Chinnakaruppan, being a subscriber in respect of two chits, was the prized subscriber in those two chits. The two chit transactions commenced on 01.02.1982 and 20.04.1982 respectively. In respect of the first chit, the said Chinnakaruppan committed default from the date of sixth instalment, namely, 01.06.1982. In regard to the second chit, he committed default from the date of third instalment, namely, 20.06.1982. The period of 20 months for the first chit got terminated on 30.09.1983 and the second chit on 19.12.1983. (ii) Chinnakaruppan died, possessing of property and leaving behind the legal representatives. Therefore...
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Sankaralin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ253Mad:2008AIRSCW7325
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Writ Appeal has been directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 3.12.2004, made in W.P. No.20757 of 1999, in and by which, the learned Judge directed the New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirunelveli, to reinstate the writ petitioner with backwages. In the same order, in respect of regularisation, the learned Judge has observed that it is for the writ petitioner/workman to make a separate application and the same shall be considered by the Insurance Company on merits. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the first respondent herein/writ petitioner was appointed only on ad-hoc basis and the nature of work is to sweep and clean the office and that, at no point of time, he worked for the whole day. 3. When his services were terminated, the workman approached the Industrial Tribunal by filing I.D. No.86 of 1993. By order dated 10.09.1998, the Industrial Tribunal, misconstruing the claim of the workman, ...
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ganapathi, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ99; AIR2007MAD246
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the award of compensation passed in M.C.O.P. No. 7 of 2004, dated 18.11.2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - I Additional District and Sessions Court, (PCR), Thanjavur. The second respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 7 of 2004 viz., the National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant herein.The background facts of the case sans irrelevant details are as follows:2. The claim petition has been preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased Arivazhagan under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the claimants, the tractor bearing Registration No. TN-45-M-5087 belonging to the first respondent, met with an accident on 09.03.2003 and that the deceased Arivazhagan was travelling in the said tractor on the left side of the mud guard and due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, the said Arivazhagan fell down near Poondi Matha Koil Arch and sustained ...
Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam by Fit Person Vs. Kasthuriam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ281
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question posed before this Full Bench is this:Whether Section 3 of the Amendment Act 2 of 1996 giving exemption to the religious institutions from the purview of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act takes away the vested rights of the tenant who obtained an order in his/her favour in an Application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921? FACTS:2. Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 2396 of 1986 against Kasthuriammal/respondent-tenant for ejectment in respect of the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, Kasthuriammal, the tenant filed an application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act in I.A. No. 10696 of 1986 for a direction to the plaintiff to sell the suit land to her, as the superstructure in the said land was constructed by her.3. The trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner and directed him to file a report regarding fixat...
Sakthi and Co., Through Its Partner Veeranan Vs. Shree Desigachary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC433; [2007(1)JCR299(Mad)]; (2006)2MLJ295
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Which is the criterion that has to be taken into account by the Rent Controller for fixing the fair rent i.e., whether the guideline value, as contained in the revenue records, or, the market value, as per the sale deeds executed at the relevant point of time ?The above is the question, posed before this Full Bench.2. Facts:(i) The landlord, respondent herein, filed a petition, namely, R.C.O.P. No. 131 of 1993 before the Rent Controller under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, for fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 5,850/- per month, on the ground that the contractual rent of Rs. 425/- per month is not sufficient.(ii) The tenant, petitioner herein, resisted the said petition, contending that the contractual rent of Rs. 425/- per month itself is sufficient and the claim of the landlord for fixing the fair rent at Rs. 5,850/- per month is on the higher side.(iii) The Rent Controller, during the course of trial, call...
A. Thiruvenkadasami Vs. the Collector of South Arcot District,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ486
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to modify the order dated 19.04.1993 issued by the second respondent allowing him the full pensionary benefits due to him taking into account, the service for 38 years from 16.11.1954 to 31.08.1992 with the interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement with benefits of gratuity, commutation of pension, etc. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the time of` arguments fairly submitted that he is not pressing for the interest of 0the payment. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Maistry (Sanitary Supervisor) on 19.11.1954 in Tirukoilur Town Panchayat. The petitioner service was confirmed on 27.11.1956. During the year 1959, Thirukoilur Town Panchayat was bifurcated as Tirukoilur Town Panchayat and Arakandanallur Village Panchayat. The petitioner was transferred to Arakandanallur Village Panchayat by the Executive Officer, Tirukoilur Panchay...
Subbiah Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3501
M.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The appeal arises from the judgment rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin dated 29-7-1997 in S. C. No. 110 of 1993.1.1 The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The grievance of the appellant is that there is no legal evidence to convict the appellant for any offence and he is entitled to acquittal.3. For the purpose of understanding, it would be sufficient to refer to the facts narrated here under:FACTS:3.1 A petty sudden quarrel led to a grave offence of murder.3.2 On 8-6-1991 at about 16.30 hours, the appellant stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest resulting instantaneous death of the deceased.3.3 The reasons for the incident are quite simple. The appellant sold his bicycle to PW.3 for Rs. 100/- Thereafter, PW.3 enquired from the deceased whether the price of the bicycle is reasonable. The deceased expressed his view that the price is on...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »