Chennai Court March 2012 Judgments
Suriya Kala Vs. the State.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records relating to the order dated 19.03.2012, made in Cr.M.P.No.1540 of 2012, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur and to set aside the same.ORDER1. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side), who has taken notice on behalf of the respondent-police has come forward to argue the revision which shall lead to the passing of a final order on merit disposing of the revision in the state of admission itself.2. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Gandhi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) referred to above are heard. The grounds of revision, copy of the impugned order and the documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are perused. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) has also produced a copy of the report of the Investigating Officer dated 20.01.2012 sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Pol...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumaran Vs. Periyasamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court in S.T.C.No.487 of 2008 and confirmed by order, dated 21.09.2010, of the appellate court i.e. Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai in C.A.No.43 of 2010.ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Madurai dated 21.09.2010 pronounced in C.A.No.43/2010. By the said judgment, the judgment of the trial court, namely learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti dated 07.05.2010 made in S.T.C.No.487/2008 was confirmed.2. The petitioner herein was prosecuted by the first respondent herein for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on the allegation that the revision petitioner issued a cheque dated 07.11.2008 bearing No.936888 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Madurai for a sum of Rs.4,00,...
Tag this Judgment!T.R.Dinakaran Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.07.2006 and consequently, seeking for a direction to the respondents to conduct O.S.No.63 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif at Aruppukottai, without any reference to the said order and decided the issues on merits.2.The case of the petitioner is that an extent of 2.02 Acres at Survey No.205/4, Aruppukottai village belonged to him. Out of the total extent of 2.02 Acres, an extent of 82 cents was acquired by the Government for formation of a bye pass road and the balance extent of 1.20 Acre was reclassified as ward 'F' Block 10, T.S.No.5/4c1 and ward 'F' Block 10, T.S.No.5/4c2. The said property is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for more than 40 years and patta also stands in the name of the petitioner under patta No.949. When 82 cents of land was acquired, the first respondent herein paid compensation to the petitioner and therefore, the title over the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State,represented by Vs. Mr.Bagavathy Dass.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
JUDGMENT1. This appeal has been preferred by the State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Thoothukudi against the judgment of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, dated 21.04.2009 pronounced in Special Case No.1 of 2005, acquitting the respondents 1 and 2 herein of the offences for which they were tried before the said court.2. The respondent No.1 figured as the first accused and respondent No.2 figured as the second accused in the Special Case before the Trial Court. The first respondent/A1 was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The second respondent/A2 was prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 12 r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 34 IPC. After trial, the learned Special Judge found them not guilty of any one of t...
Tag this Judgment!S.Narmadha Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C.,praying this Court to call for the records and to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Sattur, made in Crl.M.P.No.7982 of 2011, dated 28.02.2012.ORDER1. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) has taken notice on behalf of the respondent.2. The submissions made by Mr.C.M.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and that of the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) referred to above are heard. The grounds of revision and the documents produced in the form of typed- set of papers including the copy of the impugned order are also taken into consideration.3. The petitioner figures as an accused in Cr.No.109 of 2009, on the file of Alangulam Police Station. The said case was registered for an alleged offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. During the course of investigation, the respondent/Police seized the passport of the petitioner and produced it before the learned Judic...
Tag this Judgment!M.Panchamurthy Vs. the Fertilizers and Chemicals.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
ORDER1. The accused, who was prosecuted for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (3 counts), convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each count of the charges, after unsuccessfully prosecuting an appeal before the appellate court, has approached this court with the present criminal revision case.2. A complaint was preferred on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur by the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., represented by its Sr. Regional Manager A.Srinivasan (respondent herein) containing the following allegations:i) The petitioner herein was a dealer of the complainant doing business of sale of fertilizers in the name and style of Sathya Traders, as its sole proprietor. The revision petitioner/accused used to purchase fertilizers from the respondent/complainant by issuing cheques towards the price of such fertilizer purchased by him. A request was made by the rev...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusamy Gounder Vs. Cinnappa Gounder.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
PRAYERSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgement and Decree dated 28.03.1995 made in A.S.No.89 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur reversing the Judgement and decree dated 05.01.1987 made in O.S.No.907 of 1982 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Karur.JUDGMENT1. The appellants 1 to 4 are the defendants in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. The respondents herein as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.907 of 1982, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur, seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to irrigate the properties in terms of suit irrigation kavar; for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to remove the pipe-line laid between the points 'A' and 'B' in the suit property; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from, in any manner, laying the pipe-line further between the point...
Tag this Judgment!The Correspondent Cum Manager Vs. the Director of School Education.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
PrayerWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent, District Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.5404/Aa2/2007, dated 16.11.2007, and the subsequent order of the first respondent in proceedings No.115932/w.4/E3/08 dated 08.12.2008 taking away all management rights in respect of the staff of the petitioner school such as preparation of monthly salary bills, staff increments, leave, loans against provident fund, pension and all other benefits and quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent herein to disburse forthwith the staff grant towards the salary for the teachers and other staff of the petitioner school through the petitioner herein.ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the third respondent dated 16.11.2007 and subsequent order of the first respondent dated 08.12.2008 and for further directio...
Tag this Judgment!S.K.Malango Vs. the Commissioner of Panchayat.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
PrayerWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 23.11.2006 in his appellate order No.SE.MU.Na.Ka.No.19006/05/DPC 24 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15.09.2005 in his Na.Ka.VANo.2/31946/2004 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all the benefits. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.MD.Ibrahim AliORDER1.In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 23.11.2006 confirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 15.09.2005, whereby a punishment of withholding of increments for three years with cumulative effect was awarded.2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service as 'Gang Mazdoor' on 20.04.1972 and promoted as 'Office Assistant' on 29.07.1979. Thereafter, he was appointed as 'Jeep Driver' on 25.03.1999. The petitioner is having unblemishe...
Tag this Judgment!V.Kumaresan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
PrayerWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2012 and regularize his service with effect from 04.01.2005 with all attendant benefits with continuity of service and all other benefits.ORDER1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Heard Mr.P.M.Muniyandi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.2. The petitioner has sought for a direction to consider his representation dated 22.02.2012 and regularize his service with effect from 04.01.2005 with all attendant benefits and continuity of service. The grievance of the petitioner appears that after completing Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology and undergoing training in the Laboratory Technical Certificate Course under the Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai during the period 01.10.2002 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »