Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

M/S. V.S. Subramaniam, Partnership Firm Represented by V.S. Baghyalaks ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the judgment and conviction dated 14.03.2007 and made in C.A.No.320 of 2006, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and conviction dated 19.07.2006 and made in C.C.No.581 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore.) 1. The revision petitioners / appellants / accused have preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.527 of 2007 against the judgment made in C.A.No.320 of 2006, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.581 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The first accused is a joint partnership firm and the second and third accused are its partners. The third accused, on behalf of the first accused firm, had borrowed a sum of ...

M. Perumal Vs. State Rep by the Inspector of Police and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)LW(Cri)34; 2013(1)MWN(Cr)95; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)705

(Criminal Original Petitions filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records in P.R.C.No.43/99 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur.) COMMON ORDER G.M. AKBAR ALI, J. The present petitions filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C, seeking for a direction to call for the records in P.R.C.No.43/99 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur, connected to Cr.No.970 of 1992 registered by the Inspector of Police, Harur, Dharmapuri Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Secs.147, 148, 332, 307, 323, 324 325 and 506(ii) IPC r/w sec.25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act consequent to an incident regarding alleged atrocities committed on the Scheduled Tribes of Vachathi Village at the hands of District Forest, Police and Revenue Officials around 11.00 a.m on 20.6.1992. 2. As the factual backdrop and the legal proceedings which stemmed there from being common in so far as the present Criminal Original Petitions are concerned, they are disposed of by thi...

R. Sugumar Vs. the Collector, Thiruvallur District and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ27; 2013LabIC(NOC)141

(Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned show cause notice issued by the third respondent in Proceedings No.Nil dated 29.12.2010 and quash the same. ) The petitioner was working as Village Assistant in the third respondent-Panchayat. He committed certain gross irregularities and was suspended. The suspension was challenged in W.P.No.9967 of 2008 and the writ petition came to be dismissed on 12.7.2010 holding as follows:- "2. Admittedly, a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and even according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the said criminal case, charge sheet has been filed and the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur. 3. In view of the above stated position, there cannot be any direction to the first respondent to revoke the order of suspension. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is open ...

C. Sukumaran and Another Vs. the Competent Authority and District Reve ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)CTC326; 2013(1)LW416

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 12.1.2012 in O.A. SR. No.216 of 2011 passed by the Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Chennai.) 1. Revision petitioners, who are third parties to the proceedings initiated by the respondents in O.A.No.6 of 2001 and O.A.No.53 of 2004, have filed the application under section 9 of the TNPID Act to accept a sum of Rs.30,27,375/= as security in lieu of attachment of the petition schedule properties and cancel the interim order of attachment effected by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms.No.360, Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 3.4.2001 and G.O.Ms.No.10, Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 3.1.2002 and made absolute on 17.10.2003 in O.A.No.6 of 2011 and consequently cancel the subsequent order of sale made in O.A.No.53 of 2004 dated 31.12.2004. That petition was dismissed without numbering the same and aggrieved by that, this revision is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the petitioners ar...

R. Krishna Gounder Vs. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and Anot ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 10.09.2007, passed in E.A.No.61 of 2006, in in E.P.No.2 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.) 1. The auction purchaser is the revision petitioner herein. The property of the second respondent was brought to sale and the revision petitioner purchased the property in the auction, and certificate was also issued in his favour, under Rule 129 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. Thereafter, the revision petitioner applied to the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, for delivery of possession, by filing an Application, viz., E.A.No.61 of 2006, under Surcharge Order No.14 of 2004, and that Application was returned by the learned Principal District Judge, stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to order delivery of possession of the property and the revision petitioner has to approach the Deputy Registrar of the Tamil Nadu Co...

Easwari Vs. Duraisami

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)LW87; 2013(1)MWN(Civil)78

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 1.7.2011 in I.A.No.302 of 2011 in O.S.No.207 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.) 1. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff relied upon an unregistered sale deed dated 28.2.1998 to claim title to the suit property and during her evidence, the document was not permitted to be marked as it was unregistered and not duly stamped and therefore, she filed application in I.A.No.302 of 2011 for impounding the document offering to pay stamp duty penalty and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 3. The respondent was served and his name was also printed in the cause list, but, there was no appearance for the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was set ex parte. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below, without properly appreciating the provisions of the Stamp...

Ganesan Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore North

Court: Chennai

(Prayers: Writ Petition No.30467 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 12.07.2012 to permit the petitioner to ply the Mini Bus TN-28/A-5438 on the route, “R.G.Pudur Pirivu to Hope College" via, the deviated course of the route till such time the road conditions are made good on the original course of the route, forthwith. Writ Petition No.30468 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 12.07.2012 to permit the petitioner to ply the Mini Bus TCP-5050 on the route, “Hope College to R.G.Pudur Pirivu" via, the deviated course of the route till such time the road conditions are made good on the original course of the route, forthwith.) Common Order: 1. Writ Petition ...

Subba Rao Vs. the Water Base Limited, Rep. by Authorized Signatory, R. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)167

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2012 in C.A.No.5 of 2012, dated 04.01.2012, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai and set-aside the same.) 1. The revision petitioner herein / petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2012 against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2012 in C.A.No.5 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- into the credit of C.C.No.283 of 2007, on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The complainant is doing aqua culture business and are the manufacturers of prawn feeds in various brand names and selling the feed to the parties as per their requirement. The accused is doing aqua culture business in the name of M/s.Sri Suresh Enterprises and...

S. Neela Megam and Others Vs. Tmt. Sugantha and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)62

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the judgment and decree, dated 13.3.2009, passed in R.C.A.No.571 of 2001, on the file of the VII Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in confirming the order and decree, dated 26.6.2001, passed in R.C.O.P.No.280 of 1998, on the file of the XIII Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) The tenants are the petitioners herein. The respondents filed a Petition in R.C.O.P.No.280 of 1998, against the petitioners for eviction, on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The said Petition was ordered and the Appeal filed in R.C.A.No.571 of 2001 was dismissed, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.280 of 1998. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The respondents filed a Petition for eviction stating that they are the absolute owners of the petition mentioned property and the p...

Y. Elizabeth Rani Vs. the Convener, Board of Elementary Education, C.S ...

Court: Chennai

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent dated 21.3.2012 and quash the same.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order dated 21.3.2012 passed by the first respondent Convener, Board of Elementary Education, C.S.I.Diocese of Vellore. By the said order, the petitioner, who was working as the Secondary Grade Assistant in the second respondent school was transferred to M.D.Elementary School, Periyaramapuram, R.K.Pet Range, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvellore District, along with her post. 2. It was stated in the impugned order that the transfer was due to administrative grounds, as the petitioner was found to be surplus for the requirement of the said school. The petitioner, challenging the said transfer order, filed the present writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up on 18.4.2012, this Court ordered notice of motion returnable by six weeks. ...