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.
Thalava Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.272 of 2008, on the file of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. By Judgment dated 21.07.2010, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. For offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- [no default sentence], for offence under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- [no default sentence]. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- PW-3 is the wife of the deceased Jebasingh. The deceased was doing sand and gravel business. The accused...
S.Arumugam and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1.This Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused, to call for the records, the charge sheet in C.C.No.127 of 2004 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchendur an quash the same as illegal. 2.Heard Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Kandasmay, learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the case was filed against the petitioners by the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 379 I.P.C. read with Section 4(1)(a), 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Regulation Act, 157, for the alleged occurrence taken place on 13.12.2003. He would further submit that the said complaint was given by the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station against the petitioners. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners were stated to have not possessed any licence for transporting sand,...
The Deputy Registrar Co-operative and anr. Vs. S.Jeyachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1.This review application is filed by the Special Officer of Ramanathapuram District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., Ramanathapuram as well as the Enquiry Officer, appointed by them to conduct an enquiry against the respondent in the review application. 2.This review petition when it came up for admission on 29.11.2011, this Court directed the petitioners to serve notice on the counsel who had appeared in the writ petition before this Court. 3.Before filing the review petition, as there was a delay, the petitioners filed a condonation of delay application seeking to condone the delay of 48 days in filing the review application. Though the condonation of delay application was filed in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009, the same was not listed and subsequently on 16.02.2009 notice to the respondent was ordered. Accordingly, notice was served on the respondent on 30.07.2009. On behalf of the respondent, a counsel has entered appearance. This Court by an order dated 25.11.2011 condoned th...
Thangaperumal Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.241 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 30.11.2010, has convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded life sentence with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo R.I. for one year. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court in the appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- (i) PW.1 is the wife of the accused. After their marriage, the accused and PW.1 were residing at Mettupatti Village in Theni District. Out of the said wedlock, PW.1 became pregnant but the accused had a suspicion about the pregnancy. He started scolding PW.1 that the pregnancy was due to illicit intimacy of PW.1 with someone else and that he was not the father of the child in the womb. PW.1 preferred a complaint against the accused and started staying at the house of her parents. After some time, she gave birth to a m...
Lakshmi Vs. Mariappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011, passed in A.S.No.33 of 2010 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi in confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010, passed in O.S.No.350 of 2004 by the learned District Munsif, Sivakasi. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on the main ground that his vendor Anusia purchased the suit property from the admitted original owners of the suit property vide her sale deed - Ex.A.1 dated 07.03.1981 and in turn he purchased the same from her vide sale deed Ex.A.2 dated 03.07.1995. While so, the defendant, according to the plaintiff, barged into a portion of the said property purcha...
Ayyampillai Vs. Kalaisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.22 of 2005 dated 24/10/2005 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Kovilpatti in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 5/10/2004 in O.S.No.9 of 2004 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Vilathikulam. 2. THE PLAINT FACTS: The Appellant/Plaintiff is residing at Vilathikulam Village and he has own lands besides the Government lands taken on lease. The Appellant/Plaintiff is enjoying the suit property approximately for the past 18 years and has paid the kist. He has made improvement in the suit land by planting different types of trees like Coconut Trees, Mango Trees, Palm Trees, Guava Trees, Neem Trees, etc., and has nurtured them. He has obtained 2 (c) patta from Vilathikulam Tahsildar, by filing a necessary application as per order dated 3/4/1998 and based on the same, he has been in enjoyment of the suit property continuously. The Respondent/Defendant has no communicati...
N. Krishna Murthy Vs. Dr.G.Ravichandran, M.S., (Artho)
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 3.10.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. On 17.1.02 complainant met with an accident at Chittoor, Andrapradesh and sustained injury resulting fracture to right hand collar bone and he took treatment at the local hospital subsequently he approached the opposite party hospital on 13.9.02 and after having X-ray examination, the complainant underwent an implant surgery with bone grafting for his fracture at right Clavicle bone. In spite of that since the pain was not reduced he repeatedly approached the opposite party on several occasions and took treatment under them since the pain was not reduced during the month of June 2003, the opposite party reveled that the implant was failed and it has to be s...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›