Chennai Court December 2011 Judgments
B.T.Kokila Vs. the Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
While some writ petitions arise out of provisional assessment orders, some writ petitions arise out of final assessment orders slapped by the Electricity Board under Regulation 23(AA) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. Since the issues raised in all the writ petitions, fall only under 2 or 3 categories, all the writ petitions were grouped together and taken up by me for final disposal. 2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions have been charged by the respondents with theft of energy. In a few cases, domestic service connections are alleged to have been used for commercial purposes. In a few cases, there are allegations of tampering of meters. In a few cases, agricultural service connections are said to have been used for non agricultural purposes. In other words, all the cases on hand, barring one or two, are cases in which proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, have been initiated. 3. In some cases, the petitioners have come up with writ petitions, imm...
Tag this Judgment!Jeera Behgam Vs. the Home Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
The petitioner has three sisters namely Shaheela, Jarina and Jesima and three brothers namely S.A.Jamaludin, S.A.Samsudeen and S.A.Kamarudeen. She resides at No.4, Murahari Street, Sarathi Nagar, Saidapet West, Chennai. One of her sisters namely Shaheela resides at No.29/1, First Floor, F-2 Block, Mangai Street, Jafferkhanpet, Chennai600 083 and her husband name is S.Jainulabudin. The petitioner and her sister Shaheela reside in the same locality and the distance between the residence of the petitioner and her sister Shaheela is about 2 kms. The petitioner has two daughters namely Sarah and Safura and one son by name Ibrahim. One of her daughters namely Sarah is employed in a private company at Bengaluru. Her another daughter Safura was residing in the house of the petitioner along with her husband. According to the petitioner, she gave some jewels belonging to her and her daughters to her sister Shaheela to be kept safely in her house. 2.The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the lea...
Tag this Judgment!M.VeluduraIn Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
“Whether in the absence of exact quantity/percentage of narcotic drug/psychotropic substance found in the seized contraband, the punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drug and preparations, is to be imposed under Section 21(a) or under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985?”. This is the question referred to this Division Bench to answer. The said question came to be referred to by a learned Single Judge in the following circumstances. 2. The appellant in C.A.(MD).No.256 of 2009 was found guilty by the Trial Court for having found in possession of 1.370 Kilograms of heroin. The occurrence was on 07.01.2001. The Trial Court convicted him for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w Section 29 and Section 8(c) r/w Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985, [hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.Venkatapathi and ors. Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.62,50,815/- to the first Petitioner, Rs.10,41,777/- to the second petitioner and Rs.10,41,777/- to the third petitioner being the Fee bill amount with interest at 12% p.a. in terms of the bill dated 13.7.2010 as per the break up of principal and interest as shown in paragraph 12 with future interest. 2. The first petitioner was the former learned Advocate General of State of Tamil Nadu and Senior Counsel of this Court and petitioners 2 & 3 are learned counsels practising before this Court. The respondents engaged the first petitioner as Senior Counsel in arbitration proceedings on a claim raised by Gammon STG Joint Venture, Mumbai against the respondents. The said Gammon STG Joint Venture, Mumbai raised a claim of Rs.55.79 crores together with interest at 12% per annum from 15.05.2005 due to escalation of steel cost in the said arbitration proceedings by raising arbitrati...
Tag this Judgment!Senthilkumar Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.147 of 2003, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Trichy. By Judgment dated 07.10.2010, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Balasundari. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are the brother, father and mother respectively of the deceased. PW-1 to PW-3 are the residence of Kamarajapuram. During the year 1998, the accused was working on temporary basis as a Security in BHEL. During that time, he got introduced to the deceased and ultimately, they had fallen in love with each other. Thereafter, the accused married the deceased in the year 1998 itself. After one year of the said marriage, the accused was recruited...
Tag this Judgment!Nallammal and anr. Vs. State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
The legal question that is involved in both these writ appeals is 'whether non-payment/belated payment (beyond the reasonable time) of the compensation amount by the Government, being the acquisition body, to the land owners, would nullify the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated?' 2. The lands measuring an extent of 8.65 acres in S.No.19/2 in Vagurampatti village of Namakkal Taluk (in the erstwhile Salem District), belonging to the appellants in W.A.No.876 of 2009 were sought to be acquired by the Government for construction of houses under the Salem Neighbourhood Scheme and a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in G.O.Ms.No.976, Housing and Urban Development, dated 12.11.1981 and it was published in the Government Gazette on 16.12.1981. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 31.3.1984. These land acquisition proceedings were challenged by the land owners by filing W.P.No.8888 of 1984 before thi...
Tag this Judgment!Kirubanidhi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
This revision arises against the order of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.1216 of 2010 dated 11.10.2010. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the premises in which goods comprising of food packets, biscuits, chocolates, cosmetic items etc. were stored and in respect of which a case stands registered by the first respondent in Crime No.380 of 2010 for offence under sections 273, 420 IPC r/w section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The tenant of the petitioner is the accused in such case. While causing arrest of such tenant/accused, the first respondent seized the offending materials by locking and sealing the rented portion of the property. The representation of the petitioner made to the first respondent on 15.06.2006 to hand over the vacant possession by removing the materials went unheeded. The petitioner also informed that Form-95 was submitted before the Court below by the first respondent and a request was made to inspect the property on 10....
Tag this Judgment!Rajambal Vs. the Inspector General (Registration) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a demand made by the Sub Registrar, Subramaniyapuram, who is the third respondent herein, calling upon the petitioner to produce the revenue records and the 10(1) chitta issued by the Tahsildar to complete the formality of registration of a Sale Deed presented by her. 2. I have heard Mr.N.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents. 3. Four persons by name P.Panneerselvam, T.Balasubramaniyan, T.Muthu Ramalingam and T.Sathiyamoorthy of Rathinasinthamani village executed a Sale Deed dated 23.6.2011, conveying the land of an extent of 36 cents in Survey Nos.364/14, 364/15A and 364/15B, Arasarkulam, West Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai. The Sale Deed was presented for registration by the petitioner herein before the third respondent. But the third respondent returned the Sale Deed along with a memo dated 7.7.2011, calling upon the petition...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
This writ petition was originally filed before the Principal Bench by the writ petitioner, who is running a medical college at Padanilam, Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari District. In the writ petition, they were seeking to set aside an order passed by the Medical Council of India (for short MCI), the second respondent, dated 25.08.2011 and the consequential proceedings, dated 19.09.2011. After setting aside the same, they seek for the grant of Letter of Permission by the first respondent Central Government for starting 10 additional Post Graduate Courses in Medicine and Surgery in the petitioner's college from the academic year 2012-13. 2.Even though the said matter fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench, for reasons best known the petitioner moved the Principal Bench. When it came up for admission on 27.9.2011, Paul Vasanthakumar, J., directed notices to be served on the Standing Counsel for the Medical Council of India as well as Dr.M.G.R. Medical University. Insofar a...
Tag this Judgment!Vethamuthu Anthony Raj and ors. Vs. Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
The appellants in Crl.A.No.51 of 2011 are the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the appellants in Cr.A.(MD).No.26 of 2011 are the accused Nos.4 and 6 in S.C.No.34 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. Totally, there were seven accused. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment, dated 12.01.2011 acquitted the accused 3,5 and 7 of all charges. The fourth accused has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and under section 506(ii) IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (no default sentence). The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants 1, 2 and 6 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »