Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
G.Karunairaj Vs. State Rep.by the Secretary to Government.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in G.O.Rt.3749 dated 9.11.2011 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order passed by the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, directing the petitioner to reside in the Special Camp for Foreigners at Chengalpet.2. I have heard Mr.M.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.3. The case of the petitioner is -(i) that on 21.8.2010, he came to Chennai along with his wife and three children and stayed at a hotel;(ii) that at about midnight, a team of plain clothes police officers entered into the hotel room and took the family to Coimbatore;(iii) that several cases were foisted on him at the instance of the then Commissioner of...
Tag this Judgment!G.Alagarsamy Vs. R.Seenivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Second Appeal filed under section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 08.01.2007 passed in Appeal Suit No.19 of 2005 by the Sub Court, Periyakulam confirming the Judgment and decree dated 02.09.2004 passed in Original Suit No.153 of 2000 by the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.JUDGMENT1. The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit No.153 of 2000 by the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam and in Appeal Suit No.19 of 2005 by the Sub Court, Periyakulam are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.153 of 2000 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant.3. In the plaint it is averred that the suit property is originally belonged to the father of the defendant by name Ramachandran Naickar and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 02.02.1963. The said Ramachandran Naickar has execu...
Tag this Judgment!M.Gouriammal Vs. Soundaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Proceure Code against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2004 made in O.S.No.314 of 2004 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore.J U D G M E N TR.BANUMATHI,J.1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2004 made in O.S.No.314 of 2004 in and by which Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore dismissed the appellant/plaintiff's suit for specific performance.2. Defendants are the owners of the property measuring an extent of 1.45 acres in S.F.No.11, Krishnarayapuram village, Coimbatore Taluk. The 1st defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 3. Defendants 1 to 3 entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.A.1) with the plaintiff on 14.4.1999 agreeing to sell the suit property at the price of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre i.e., for a total sale consideration of Rs.17,40,000/-. On the date of agreement of sale, the 1st defendant has rece...
Tag this Judgment!Velu Vs. S.Sudalaimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
PrayerCriminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4)Cr.P.C., to call for the records from the Court below and to set aside the order of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate and II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli in S.T.C.No.62 of 2006, dated 02.02.2011 by allowing this appeal and convict the respondent/accused herein with maximum sentence.JUDGMENT1. The complainant before the trial Court is the appellant herein. The appellant had preferred a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., on the file of the trial Court, namely, the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate-cum-II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli against the respondent herein for prosecuting and punishing the respondent for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The case was tried as a summary trial case assigning S.T.C.No.62 of 2006. At the end of trial, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate found the respondent herein/accused not guilty of the offence for which he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Defence Officers Vs. Sethulakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Civil Revision Petition No.2435 of 2011 against the order dated 1.6.2011 in E.A.No.71 of 2009 in E.P.No.25 of 2008 in O.S.No.248 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Alandur. Civil Revision Petition No.2580 of 2011 against the order dated 1.6.2011 in E.A.No.72 of 2009 in E.P.No.26 of 2008 in O.S.No.249 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Alandur. Civil Revision Petition No.2581 of 2011 against the order dated 1.6.2011 in E.A.No.74 of 2009 in E.P.No.28 of 2008 in O.S.No.254 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Alandur.COMMON ORDER1. The respective respondent in the above revisions filed the suits for declaration that they are entitled to use the northern side road leading to the property by way of prescriptive right and for mandatory injunction directing the revision petitioner to remove the wall put across the road on east-west. The revision petitioner was the defendant in the suits and it did not prosecute the suit and the suit...
Tag this Judgment!A.Chandrasekaran Vs. the Special Commissioner of Treasury
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recording relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in R.C.No.14335/07/A2 dated 23.09.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to regularize the petitioner in the category of Junior Assistant and fix the pay scale for the same.Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recording relating to the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.14335/07/A2 dated 23.09.2009 passed by the respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and to direct the respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner as Junior Assistant with all consequential benefits.COMMON ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.9949 of 2009, is challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 23.09.2009 and consequently seeking for a direction ...
Tag this Judgment!Chellathurai Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., against the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District in S.C.No.28 of 2010 by judgment dated 8.10.2010, wherein he was convicted under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay Rs.1,000/- as fine, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.JUDGMENTP.DEVADASS,J1. This appeal raises question of 'plea of insanity', how and under what circumstances, it could be raised and by what standard of proof it has to be established and who has to establish it and the crucial time of state of the mind of the accused are some of the crucial questions involved in this appeal.2. The appellant, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar was accused of having attempted to ravish one Karupayee and while attempting such dastardly act, killed her.3. Charges under Section 376 r/w. 511 and 302 IPC have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
PRAYERWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation for the death of the petitioner's husband (Late) Mr.Rajaram, aged 39 years, due to electrocution.ORDER1. This Writ Petition, at the instance of a widow and eye witness to the unfortunate incident of electrocution of her husband, seeks a direction to the Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as compensation.FACTS IN NUTSHELL:2. The husband of the petitioner by name Rajaram was conducting a hotel in the name and style of M/s.Sarojini Mess. The petitioner was assisting her husband in the conduct of hotel. The husband of the petitioner was doing considerable business in view of the strategic location of the shop. He was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The hotel was situated at Natham-Dindigul Main Road, Meenakshipuram, Natham. There were two elect...
Tag this Judgment!R.Vijaya Vs. A.Mohanraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.535 of 2011 in O.S.No.595 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal dated 08.09.2011 and to set aside the same.ORDER1. The defendant in O.S.No.595 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal is the revision petitioner.2.The respondent filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.84,840/- and the suit was decreed. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.1587 of 2005 for attachment of the property giving survey numbers, extent and boundary and attachment before the judgment was ordered and after decree was passed on 05.12.2005, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application to bring the property for sale and the sale was conducted and the property was purchased by one K.Arumugam in the Court auction held on 24.10.2007. The sale was also confirmed i...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary Vs. Vanideswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J.)1. The Management as well as the delinquent teacher are on appeal before this Court, as against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)Nos.11602 of 2011 and 8998 of 2011, dated 10.12.2011. W.A.(MD)No.98 of 2012 is filed by the Management and W.A.(MD)No.130 of 2012 is filed by the delinquent teacher.2.For the purpose of convenience, the status as shown in the writ petitions are maintained in this appeal.3.The delinquent teacher is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. W.P.(MD)No.11602 of 2011 was filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Secretary, Buddha Middle School, Periyakulam, appointing an Enquiry Officer, by proceedings dated 24.09.2011. W.P.(MD)No.8998 of 2011 is regarding challenge made to the proceedings dated 18.07.2011 sustaining the writ petitioner consequent on certain allegations and pending the enquiry.4.The facts herein are that the writ petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »