Chennai Court February 2008 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.
State by the Inspector of Police Vs. Kutty @ Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3395
V. Periya Karuppiah, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment acquittal of the accused/respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Kancheepuram made in S.C. No. 378/2004 dated 28.3.2005 from the charges framed against him under Sections 449, 341, 302, 380 and 201 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution before the Lower Court was that on 24.10.2003 at 2.00 a.m, the accused with an intention to cause murder of the deceased Jagadambal and to steal the jewels belonging to her, had entered into the house of Jagadambal in Door No. 4, Thereuvar Thoppu, Pillaiyarpalayam, Kancheepuram, with an intention to commit the offence liable to be punished with death sentence, had pushed the said Jagadambal and thereby made her not to go away, but to have confined without any movement and thereafter, with the knife, had stabbed her on the abdomen three times and caused serious injuries which led to the death of the deceased, Jagadambal and thereafter the...
K. Srinivasan Vs. the Regional Manager (P and Ir), Life Insurance Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ631
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 9.4.2005 and for a direction to appoint his brother on compassionate ground in a suitable post.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:(a) Petitioner's father Krishnamurthi worked as Higher Grade Assistant in LIC, Dharmapuri Branch with staff No. 510503. He was not heard of from 20.4.1993. A complaint was lodged before the police for man-missing and the police failed to find the petitioner's father. The respondent Corporation initiated action against the petitioner's father on the ground that he was not attending duties.(b) According to the petitioner, his family waited for seven years and thereafter instituted a suit in O.S. No. 159 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri for declaration that petitioner's father should be presumed to have attained civil death as per the provisions of Sections 107 and 10...
K.K. Mohandas and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ492
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Writ Appeals in W.A. Nos. 1124 and 1125 of 2001 are arising out of the order dated 17.4.2000 made in W.P. Nos. 3933 and 3934 of 1992. The relief sought for in W.P. No. 3933 of 1992 was for issuance of a mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner resorting to recover any dues from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue in respect of toddy and arrack shops licenced to Ms. K.S. Chathumni & Co., during the excise year 1981-82. The relief sought for in W.P. No. 3934 of 1992 was for issuance of writ of declaration declaring that the provisions of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Disposal in Action) Rules, 1981 is unconstitutional, void and unenforceable.2. The Writ Appeals in W.A. Nos. 247 and 248 of 2002 are arising out of the order dated 17.4.2000 made in W.P. Nos. 6177 and 6178 of 1993. The relief sought for in W.P. No. 6177 of 1993 was for issuance of a mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner resorting to recove...
Kannika Parameshwari Service Station Bharath Petroleum Dealers Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MysLJ586
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders of the first and second respondents dated 13.06.2007 and 25.09.2007, by which the respondent Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., has directed the petitioner to remove the personal effects from the Retail Outlet (RO) site and also informed the petitioner that the petitioner is only a Licensee operating the Retail Outlet in the land comprised in R.S. No. 1536/2 and 153 part bearing Old No. 158/New No. 24, Dr. Besant Road, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005 and the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., who is a tenant is vacating the schedule premises, thereby informing the petitioner that the dealership has come to an end on the eviction from the premises.2. The case of the petitioner was that, the petitioner is a Retail Outlet Licensee under the Burmah Shell from 1972 and after the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., was formed in 1979, the petitioner continued to carry on business at No. 105-A Besant Road, Chennai 600 00...
Prakash and ors. Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: II(2008)DMC450
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The petitioners have come forward with this petition to quash the FIR relating to Crime No. 171 of 2007 dated 7.8.2007 on the file of the second respondent.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been arrayed as A1 to A4 and have been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 498A of I.P.C. r/w Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ ST Act, 1989. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the matter was amicably settled between the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of the advice given by the elders, both the first petitioner and the de facto complainant, the third respondent herein, have joined together and they are leading a happy married life. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that a Joint Memo was also filed by the petitioners and the third respondent, the de facto complainant in this case dated 14.2.2008. The learned Counsel wo...
Mil MerIn Gas Agencies Rep. by Its Proprietor, Mr. S.P. Rajan and Mrs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR578(Madras); (2008)4MLJ316
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by M/s.Mil Merin Gas Agencies (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s.Mil Merin') against the order dated 6th March, 2007, passed by learned Judge in Application No. 1569/04 in Application No. 800/03. By the said order, Advocate Commissioner has been allowed to sell the land measuring an extent of 12.22 acres in S. No. 12/1A, 1C, 1A2 located at Valparai Village, Valparai Taluk, Annamalai Hills, Coimbatore District to the 2nd respondent, R.Muralikrishnan.2. The appellant has raised the question of jurisdiction of learned single Judge to pass such order Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').On the other hand, according to counsel for the respondents, the appeal is barred by principle of res judicata, the earlier order appointing advocate commissioner for sale of property in question having reached finality.3. For determination of the issues, it is necessary to discuss all the fa...
Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited Rep. by Its Manager Vs. Mrs. G. Vij ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ6
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This revision application has been preferred by the petitioner, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') against order dated 21st March, 2007, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Tribunal') in M.A. No. 40/06. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal imposed cost of Rs. 5,000/= on respondent and set aside the order dated 27th Feb., 2006, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') with further direction to respondent to deposit the principal amount of Rs. 4 lakhs together with simple interest @ 19.89% p.a.2. According to the petitioner, the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree as was preferred by the respondent before the Tribunal was rightly rejected, being barred by limitation. The Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into the merit of the main suit for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal without determining t...
A. Alima Vs. A. Charles Vincent Paul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3443
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with these petitions seeking for the relief of transferring the cases pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai in C.C. Nos. 473, 475, 477, 480, 478, 474, 479 and 476 of 2006 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in all these petitions, the petitioners is one and the same and the petitioner is facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that all these complaints were filed by the same respondent/ complainant viz., Bharti Tele/Ventures Limited, Bharti Towers, 101, Santhome High Road, Chennai 28. It is further contended that in the bills of the respondent/complainant company it is specifically mentioned as condition No. 5 to the effect that all disputes are subject to Chennai jurisd...
Kumarasen Vs. the Inspector General of Registration,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ74
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed for a direction against the order of the first respondent Inspector General of Registration, dated 06.01.98 by which the revision filed by the petitioner dated 27.05.96 has been rejected by holding that the documents produced for Registration should be treated as Settlement as per the Schedule 58A(1) of the Indian Stamps Act.2. The petitioner and his brothers have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one G. Ponnuswamy, who is the Managing Trustee of P.K. Govindasamy Educational and Charitable Trust. The object of the trust was to advance, propagate and provide Nursery, Primary and Technical Education and so on. The said trust proposed to start a Polytechnic in Patchal Village and the petitioner and his brothers as owners of the property has only proposed to permit the said P.K. Govindasamy Educational and Charitable Trust to occupy the other lands and it was in that regard, the General Power of Attorney deed dated 12.12....
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nagaraj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2006ACJ2587; 2008(2)CTC407; [2008(117)FLR745]; (2008)IIILLJ61Mad; (2008)4MLJ58
R. Banumathi, J.1. Challenging the order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour Commissioner awarding compensation of Rs. 1,66,290/- for the death of deceased Nagammal, Insurance Company has preferred this appeal denying its liability.2. First respondent's wife Nagammal was working as an employee under the second respondent at Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. and the employees are covered under Insurance Scheme. On 06.09.2000, at about 9.45 a.m., she suffered severe heart attack and she was taken to the hospital by ambulance but she passed away on the way to the hospital. Alleging that the death occurred in the course of employment, first respondent and their son and daughter have filed Petition under Section 10, Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Denying any accident at work place, causing injuries to the deceased, management has opposed the claim stating that death was due to heart attack and not due to any accident in the course of employment and whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »