Chennai Court July 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.
R. Muthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad337; (2006)3MLJ912
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The wife of the appellant, by name Chitra, underwent sterilisation operation at the Family Planning Centre i.e, the 4th respondent on 29 .1.2001 and she was discharged on 30.1.2001. Unfortunately, due to improper operation, she died on 01.2.2001.2. It appears that respondents 1 and 2 have formulated a Scheme in association with the fifth respondent, whereby, in cases of death due to sterilisation, if death occurs in the hospital or within 30 days due to consequences of the sterilisation after being re-admitted, then the fifth respondent is liable to pay Rs. 2 lakhs and respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- as ex-gratia compensation. The Scheme came into force with effect from 01.2.2001. The appellant filed the writ petition with the grievance that by the order impugned in the writ petition, only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was granted towards exgratia, while rejecting the claim of Rs. 2 lakhs towards compensation, to which according to the appellant he is entit...
H.C. LenIn Vs. the Commissioner of Police and the Additional Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ900
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order issued by the respondents 1 and 2 in C. No. F1/PR 13/2004 dated 17 .06.2004 and Rc. No. 150713/PR.I (1)/2004 dated 05.10.2004 respectively and quash the same.2. When the Petitioner was working as Inspector of Police in Andhiyur Police Station between 18.11.1994 and 18.11.1996, on the basis of two complaints received against him during that period, preliminary enquiry was conducted by the respondents and thereafter charge memo dated 07.03.1997 was issued under Rule 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1995 levelling four charges against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the said charges. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed 10.04.1997. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry in which 20 witnesses and 26 exhibits were marked by the prosecut...
Srikanth and anr. Etc. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4126
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. The first accused who prefers Crl. A. No. 345 of 2004, the second accused who prefers Crl. A. No. 309 of 2004, the third and the fifth accused who prefer Crl. A. No. 115 of 2004 have been convicted by the Sessions Court in S.C. No. 385 of 2003. The fourth accused who also suffered the judgment of conviction has not preferred any appeal.2. The trial Judge convicted all the four accused/appellants and the accused who has not preferred appeal for offence Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. and sentence each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- each, failing which to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Though the Criminal Appeal No. 935 of 2004 was not listed we called for the bundle of the said appeal and took up the same along with these three appeals for disposal.3. The charge as against the first accused is that on 3.3.2003 at the Auto stand opposite Koyambedu Market, the first accused Settu alias Dhanasekaran attacked Senu alias Sree...
Muthusamy Vs. K. Ganesan and Perumaye
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ644
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by plaintiff in O.S. No. 86/2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankari. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is land and building.2. After filing the written statement the defendants/respondents filed I.A. No. 486/2002 to struck off the suit from the file on the ground that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property and therefore he is not entitled to file the suit on behalf of his wife. When I.A. No. 486/2002 was pending, the revision petitioner as plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1231/2003 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for receiving the document dated 5.9.2003 which is the settlement deed executed by his wife in his favour when the suit was pending. This application was resisted by the respondents herein by contending that even after the settlement ...
Settai Murugan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3713
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. Accused 1 to 3, who suffered conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, move the present appeal.2. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, has returned a verdict of conviction as against A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The fourth accused was absconding.3. The charges as against these appellants/accused as well as the other accused, who faced the trial before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry are that they formed an unlawful assembly in front of Hotel Mass at Maraimalai Adigal Salai, Pondicherry at about 4.45 p.m. on 7-6-2001 and thereby they committed an offence of rioting punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code; during the course of the said transaction, A.1 t...
Nathan Alias Christopher Yoganathan and Etc. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3610
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. The third accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 354 of 2004, the fifth accused Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2004 and the first and the fourth accused Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2005 as against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge. The second accused has not chosen to prefer any appeal as against the judgment of convection and sentence passed by the trial Judge.2. The charges as against A. 1 to A. 5 are that on 13-8-2001 at about 10.15 p. m. in front of the shop of Sekar located at Door No. 13, Gandhi Road, Taramani 100 feet Road, Velachery, the accused 1 to 5 formed an unlawful assembly and committed rioting armed with deadly weapon and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code; during the course of the same transaction A. 1 to A. 3 trespassed upon the mechanical shop of Sekar and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code; during the course of the sa...
Mariyaee and Minor Gowri Vs. Pappammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ710
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2003, passed in I.A. No. 1141/2003 in M.C.O.P. No. 737/2000, on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and District Judge, Perambalur.2. The unsuccessful proposed parties who filed I.A. No. 1141/2003 in M.C.O.P. No. 737/2000 are the Revision Petitioners.3. The Revision Petitioners filed I.A. No. 1141/2003 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead themselves in the main petition filed by 1st respondent herein for claiming compensation for the death of her (1st respondent) husband, by contending that they are the daughter-in-law and grand-daughter of the deceased husband of the 1st respondent herein. It was resisted by the 1st respondent (claimant) on the ground that her son Gandhi died on 26.10.1996, long after the death of her husband who died on 11.1.1990 and therefore they are not dependents of her deceased husband. 4. The trial court accepted this co...
K. Ramaiah Vs. R. Sudhakara Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC353; 2006CriLJ3581; 2006(4)CTC481
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, to receive the copy application filed by the counsel for the petitioner and furnish certified copies of the complaint and related documents in C.C. No. 10 of 2005 within a time frame.2. The petitioner is the accused in the case facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and according to him, his counsel presented a copy application on 05.04.2006 seeking for certified copies of the complaint and related documents and the learned Magistrate refused to receive the application, which necessitated him to file this petition.3. Considering the nature of the prayer sought for, there is no necessity to issue a notice to the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice provides for issuance of copies to parties and it stipulates that copies of any portion of the record of a criminal case mus...
K. Indira Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Secretary Ministry of P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ492
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has filed WP No. 4844 of 2001 praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from issuing LPG Distributorship for HP Gas in Tharamangalam locality, Salem District in open (women) category list to the fourth respondent which was called and advertised on 28.08.2000 by the second respondent without following the usual and normal procedures.2. The prayer in WP No. 11066 of 2001 is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the file relating to issue of LPG Distributorship for HP Gas in Tharamangalam locality, Salem District in open (women) category list which was called and advertised on 28.08.2000 and quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent herein by order dated 22.11.2000 relating to the above said subject matter and grant the same distributorship to the petitioner herein.3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The second respondent/Petroleum Corpor...
Revathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC650
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the detention order, dated 11.11.2005, detaining her husband by name David as 'Goonda' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the discrepancy in the Serial Numbers in the First Information Reports, in the absence of proper explanation, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind.4. In support of the above contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner furnished certain details, viz., in the Booklet supplied to the detenu, page Nos.25 and 26 are the F.I.R. Copy of M-3 Puzhal Police Station ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »