Chennai Court January 2012 Judgments
Murugan Alias Sakthivelmurugan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
1. Murugan @ Sakthivelmurugan @ Kuchimurugan and Muniasamy @ Chinnamuniasamy are A1 and A2 in S.C.No.111 of 2009 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Tuticorin. 2. A1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.311 of 2010, while A2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2010 as against the judgment rendered by the said Sessions Court on 23.03.2010. 3. For convenient sake, throughout this judgment, we shall call the Appellants as A.1 (Criminal Appeal No.311 of 2010) and A2 (Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2010) as they were arrayed in the Trial Court. 4. In the said Court, they stood charged under Sections 341,294(b) and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 506(ii)IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, found them not guilty under Section 294(b) IPC. However, found them guilty under Sections 341,506(ii) and 302 r/w 34 IPC. 5. A.1 and A.2 were sentenced as under:- ACCUSED CONVICTION SENTENCE A.1 S.341 IPC Rs.500 in default one week simple imprisonment S.506 (ii) IPC On...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaraju Vs. Kannayal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
The Appellant/Plaintiff has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.1998 in A.S.No.40 of 1998 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Bhavani in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.09.1997 in O.S.No.573 of 1991 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Bhavani. 2. The First Appellate Court, viz., Learned Sub Judge, Bhavani, while passing the judgment in A.S.No.40 of 1998 on 19.11.1998, has among other things observed that the “Plaintiff (Appellant) has not been residing in the suit property as spoken to by P.W.2 in his evidence in cross-examination” and has resultantly come to the conclusion that Ex.A1-Rent Deed has been created for the purpose of the case and accordingly allowed the appeal, thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.573 of 1991, dated 24.09.1997 passed by the trial Court. 3. Earlier, before the trial Court, in the main suit, one to two issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kamalammal and ors. Vs. the Special Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
The grievance represented by Tmt. Kamalam, wife of (Late) Periyasamy Udayar, a small farmer of Kottaiyur Village of Kallakurichi Taluk that her lands of meagre extent of ownership may be deleted from acquisition for the provision of House-sites to Adi-Dravidars of the Village has been considered by the Collector of South Arcot, Cuddalore. The Special Tahsildar (ADW), Kallakurichi is hereby directed not to cover the lands of the petitioner in any of the acquisition proceedings. “ 4. In the representations, the petitioner has also pointed out the dropping of the acquisition proceedings on the earlier occasions. The Authorised Officer after enquiry on 22.1.2002 furnished a report to the District Collector and thereupon the notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The copy of the report of the Authorised Officer has not been furnished to the owner/ the petitioner herein so as to enable him to make further representation to the District Collector and therefore, prejudice...
Tag this Judgment!J.Xavier Raj Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
1. Out of the five accused, who were convicted and sentenced in S.C.No.187 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, A.2 Xaiver Raj has directed this appeal. For the sake of convenience, throughout this appeal, we shall call him the appellant. 2. In the said Court, in the said case, A.2 stood charged for offences under Sections 342,148 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. After trial, on 9.2.2011, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted A.2 under Sections 342, 148 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him as under: (i) under Section 342 IPC : 1 year rigorous imprisonment (ii) under Section 148 IPC : 3 years rigorous imprisonment (iii) under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC : life imprisonment and fine Rs.1,000/- in default, 6 months simple imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that all the said sentences shall run concurrently. 4. To bring home the charges levelled against all the accused including the appella...
Tag this Judgment!M.Ramanathan Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
1. The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge made in W.P.No.48011 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.4491/2000) dated 28.07.2010. 2. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.No.48011 of 2006 to call for the records of the second respondent in R.P.No.131 of 1998, dated 30.6.1999 and of the first respondent in C.NO.B1/1729/2000, dated 19.5.2000 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 3. According to the appellant, while he was serving as Grade I Police Constable in Madurai City, he was served with a charge memo in P.R.No.131 of 1998 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for the following charges:- (i) Highly improper act in doing money lending business in Melavasal areas, Madurai during the year 1997 and thereby violated Rule 1 of TNSPO Conduct Rules 1964. (ii) Violat...
Tag this Judgment!S.P.Sundarakesari Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
The sole accused in C.C.No.360 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi has come forward with the present Criminal Revision case, questioning the correctness and legality of the order of the said Judicial Magistrate, dated 27.05.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.8533 of 2010, filed by the Revision Petitioner in the above said Calendar Case. 2. In the said petition, the Revision Petitioner had contended that some of the documents relied on by the prosecution were produced only during the examination of P.W.1 in chief; that though copies of the said documents were allegedly handed over to the Investigating Officer during investigation, copies of the said documents were not furnished to the accused and that the Revision Petitioner needed copies of those documents for doing effective cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, after hearing both sides, observed that as many as 32 documents had been marked as Ex.P1 to Ex....
Tag this Judgment!A.Ochu Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Heard the submissions made by Mr.J.Selvam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) representing the respondent police. This court also perused the grounds of revisions, certified copies of the impugned orders and copies of the other connected papers filed in a typed set of papers. 2.The present Criminal Revision Cases came to be filed by A.Ochu, who has been arrayed as Accused No.1 in crime No.56 of 2011 on the file of the Kurangani Police station, Bodinaickanur, Theni District, against the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bodinaickanur, remanding him to police custody in the said case and dismissing the petition of the revision petitioner to release him on bail. 3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that when a person accused of a bailable offence is arrested or brought before the court or appears before the Judicial Magistrate, he cannot be remanded to either judicial custody or to po...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.M.Mohamed Mydeen Vs. S.N.Peer Mohamed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
1. These Second Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 28.11.2006 passed in AS.Nos.6 and 7/2006 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 10.08.2005 passed in OS.Nos.46/1997 and 308/1999 by the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. The Appellant herein filed the above said suit in OS.No.46/1997 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli against the Respondent herein for declaration and recovery of possession of the house bearing Door No.155, Pulianjuvanam, 7th Street, Thiruvaranganeri, Eruvadi. He claims title of the above said property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 18.04.1994 executed by his mother Asan Pathumal, who in turn got the property by way of a registered gift deed dated 29.04.1993 from her husband. The brother of the Appellant had filed a suit for partition of his share in the suit property and one another property against his mother and the Appellant herein befor...
Tag this Judgment!Mukanchand Bothra @ Mayavaram Bothra Vs. Kulwant Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Original Side Appeals arise out of the order dated 24.02.2010 made in A.No.6341 of 2009 & O.A.No.638 of 2007 respectively in C.S.No.456 of 2007. 2.First respondent herein as a plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.456 of 2007 for declaration that the decree passed in C.S.No.205 of 1999 is a nullity and not binding on the plaintiff and also declaration that the order dated 23.07.2004 passed by the Execution Court in E.P.No.100 of 2003, is a nullity and not binding on the plaintiff and declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.2005 registered as Document No.1999/2005 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Tirupporur, in respect of the suit scheduled property executed by the Registrar, High Court, Madras, in favour of the first defendant is null and void and non-est in the eye of law and for other reliefs. 3.During the pendency of the suit, first respondent herein filed an application in O.A.No.638 of 2007 for an injunction restraining the first defendant therein from seeking to do ...
Tag this Judgment!Gowrappan and ors. Vs. Santhosh Babu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Contempt Petition in C.P.No.921 of 2009 dated 11.7.2011, appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Brief facts are as follows: The dry land situated at No.124, Kothapetta village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District in Survey No.1/1 etc., measuring 8.77 acres was acquired for construction of houses to Adi Dravidars under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Section 4(1) notification was approved on 22.3.1994 and after approval published in G.O.3D No.385 Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department on 10.6.1994. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 31.7.1984 and award was passed by the 2nd respondent in Award No.4/1994-95 dated 24.3.1995. 3. Layout prepared was approved on 31.3.1995. Compensation amount was paid to the land owners/appellants, who in turn passed stamped receipts on 3.4.1995. Appellants/land owners handed over the possession on 4.4.1995 and evidencing possession, the appellants have also signed in the posse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »