Chennai Court December 2011 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.
S. Sakthivel Vs. Col. Commanding Officer, Artillery Depot Regiment and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 against the impugned order of conviction and sentence of dismissal for an offence under Section 38(1) of the Army Act rendered by SCM, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent, under order No.CF/14438641A/05/A3, dated 03.12.2009. 2. Before the Court Martial, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Exhibits 1 to 7 were exhibited. 3. The charge levelled against the accused/appellant is under Section 38(1) of the Army Act, which reads as follows:- at field on 26th February 2007 absented himself from the place of his duty as he failed to rejoin his unit 13 Rashtriya Rifles (KUMAON), on expiry of the part of annual leave granted to him from 5th January 2007 to 25th February 2007 until voluntarily surrendered at Arty Centre, Nasik Road Camp on 17th April 2008 at 10.30 hours. 4. P.W.1 Maj SK Mukherjee, speaks about the surrender of the appellant/accused on 17.04.2008 and s...
Karuppasamy Konar Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
(M.JAICHANDREN,J) 1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 23.08.2011, made in M.H.S.Confdl.No.53/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Udaiyarsamy, Son of Karuppasamy Konar, aged about 30 years, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the father of the detenu. The petitioner has stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned detention order, under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No.127, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the sa...
Rajasekar Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
(M.JAICHANDREN,J) 1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 9.9.2011, made in C.M.P.No.09/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Rajasekar, Son of Sampath @ Ramasamy, aged about 28 years, confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No.124, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in his proceedings C.M.P.No.09/2011, dated 9.9.2011, directing the detenti...
Minor Adithya Vs. the Special District Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. Heard Mr. K.C. Vinoth for M/s. L. Chandra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Digvijayapandian, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr. S. Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent is the father of the petitioner and he is only a formal party and hence, no hearing is required in respect of the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner has come before this Court for a direction to direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 25.07.2011 seeking apportionment of compensation to the extent of petitioner's right in the said ancestral property mentioned therein within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 3. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he is the minor son born to Venkatachalapathy and Sumithra Devi on 25.02.1997 as some misunderstanding arose between the parents consequent upon the birth of the petitioner and even prior to that, they have been living separately. Therefore, he filed th...
M.K.Alagarsamy and anr. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. This writ petition is filed by the two brothers, who are the resident of Lingapuram, Pandalkudi Post, Arupukkottai Taluk. In this writ petition they have sought for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from taking any action for dispossessing the petitioners' occupation of the property comprised in S.No.140/52-A and 52-B to the extent of three cents respectively situated at Lingapuram Village, T.Koppuchithampatti Group, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, without due process of law. 2. This writ petition was admitted on 26.06.2008. Pending the writ petition an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the Panchayat President of Pandalkudi, represents by its President, filed M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 to implead and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009 to vacate the interim orders. The impleading was ordered by this Court. In the vacate interim injunction application, after hearing both sides, this Court found that the land was “Oor Podu Idam” (communal land) and ...
United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs. K. Paruvatham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.104 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem. 2. The Insurance Company is the appellant. The 1st respondent/claimant had filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one Paramasivam, her husband, who died in a car accident on 28.4.1999 near Athur on the Salem-Athur Main Road. 3. According to the claimant, on 28.4.1999 the deceased was travelling in a Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration. No. TN 27E 0703 insured with the appellant. The car was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and around 5.30 a.m, dashed against a stationary lorry. The deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. He was hale and healthy and was 55 years old. As a business man, he was earning Rs.15,000/-per month. 4. The claimant is the sole survivor. Therefore, a claim of Rs.5,00,000/- has been made. 5. Sinc...
R.Balamurugan Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
(M.JAICHANDREN,J) 1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 18.8.2011, made in Cr.M.P.No.24/2011, (GOONDA) and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, R.Balamurugan, Son of Ramar, aged about 23 years, confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No.153, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in his proceedings Cr.M.P.No.24/2011 (GOONDA), dated 18.8.2011, di...
Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. Vs. Word of God Fellowship and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. Aggrieved by the common order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in O.A. Nos. 439, 440 and 441 of 2011 and Application No. 2821 of 2011 in C.S. No. 340 of 2011, the appellant has come forward with these Original side Appeals. 2. The appellant has filed C.S. No. 340 of 2011 for the following reliefs:- “(a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, representatives, successors or assigns or anyone claiming under them from downlinking, distributing the signals or telecasting Daystar Television Network channel in any place or media in India otherwise than through the plaintiff; (b) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, by themselves, their men, agents, representatives, successors or assigns or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark “DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK” by using the said name in any television programmes, stationery, broa...
T.A.B.Jaleel and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. All the Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders dated 26.4.2011 passed by the second respondent in R.C.Nos.1154, 11542, 11544, 11545, 11546, 11553 and 11554 of 2009 respectively. 2. The relief sought for in the seven Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same. The respondents are also same. Hence, by consent the seven Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The lessees of the first respondent temple are before this Court. In proceedings Na.Ka.No.280/2008-34/A-4 dated 10.10.2008, the then Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer of the first respondent temple issued a calculation memo determining the lease amount based on certain data. The said proceedings was in the nature of demand. Before passing that order no opportunity was given to the lessees to make their objection to the determination. It is also the grievance of the revision petitioners/lessees that the procedure prescribed under Section 34A of the Tamil Nadu Hind...
Selvaraj Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
(M.JAICHANDREN,J) 1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 9.9.2011, made in C.M.P.No.10/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Selvaraj, Son of Raman, aged about 23 years, confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No.124, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in his proceedings C.M.P.No.10/2011, dated 9.9.2011, directing his detention in the Cent...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »