Chennai Court March 2012 Judgments
Velammal Residential School Vs. the Executive Engineer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
COMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J)1. There are two Writ Petitions filed by the Educational Trust. It is stated that the petitioner is running a residential school in Ladanenthal Village in Sivagangai District, since 2008. There are about 350 students drawn from different parts of the globe studying therein. The residential school is located in an area of 10 acres of patta land in Survey Nos.27/3A4, 27/4A, 27/3A, 3B, 26/1A and 26/1B in Ladanenthal Village in Sivagangai District, having northern boundary on the bank of Vaigai River and southern boundary on the Madurai - Rameswaram National Highway.2. It is stated before this Court that on the southern side, the petitioner had kept a big playground, while on the western, northern and eastern sides, it had put up constructions. The said constructions were done after obtaining permission from the Revenue authorities. It is further stated that on the southern end of the playground, is the Kothankulam canal ru...
Tag this Judgment!S.Subramanian Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J.)1. This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.2603 of 2008 filed by one S.Subramanian, representing himself as the custodian of M/s.Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited, Dharapuram. The said Writ Petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the auction notice dated 18.01.2005 issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kodaikanal for arrears of sales tax of M/s.Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. The said Writ Petition was considered along with the batch of Writ Petitions filed by various other parties against the statutory authorities and financial institutions, wherein the company figured in as a respondent.2. While considering the various Writ Petitions, learned single Judge passed a common order dismissing some of the Writ Petitions and disposing of some Writ Petitions with certain directions. As far as W.P.(MD)No.2603 of 2008 leading to the filing of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Kader Mohideen Vs. K.S.A.Kader Meera Sahib.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
JUDGMENT1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.870 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Nanguneri is the appellant.2. The northern 3 cents comprised in S.No.579/2 situate in Eervadi in Nanguneri Taluk in Tirunelveli District is the suit property. On 14/2/1950, plaintiff's father Ibrahim Sahib purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed from one Peer Maideen. At an oral partition, it was allotted to plaintiff. Plaintiff is in enjoyment and possession of the property. The revenue records are in his name. He had cut and removed the dried trees. Defendants have no manner of right in the property. They tried to interfere in plaintiff's possession. In the circumstances, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration as to his title to the suit property and injunction.3. The first defendant filed written statement resisting the suit. He contended that the suit property belongs to Jamath. He is its muthavalli. Pathummal Beevi, orally, gifted her 6 cents to Jamath. 3 cents belonged to Ibrahim...
Tag this Judgment!S.K.S.Siva Kumar Vs. the Executive Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
COMMON ORDER1. The three writ petitions along with the three second appeals came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Administrative Judge Incharge of Madurai Bench vide order dated 14.11.2011.2. The petitioner in the three writ petitions as well as the appellant in the three second appeals is one and the same person by name S.K.S.Sivakumar, a resident of Tiruppur.3. In the first writ petition, the writ petition challenges the order of the Executive Officer, Inam Karur Municipality dated 24.06.2005. The said order came to be passed pursuant to an order being passed by this Court in W.P.No.2981 of 2004 dated 31.01.2005. The said writ petition challenged an order passed by the Municipality effecting transfer of assessment order made by the Municipality in the name of the second respondent D.Murugesh in respect of the property in D.No.16/124 situated at Kovai Road, L.N.S.Village, Inam Karur Municipality. The said writ petition came to be allowed on the short gr...
Tag this Judgment!A.Varuvel Vs. the Competent Authority.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C., praying this Court to set aside the order made in Memo filed by the Special Public Prosecutor, dated 07.02.2011, in C.C.No.23 of 2010, on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Madurai so far as the petitioner is concerned.ORDER1. Notice before admission was served on respondents. The respondent No.1 alone is represented by the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side). Though notice was served on the second and third respondents, they have not entered appearance either in person or through counsel. Hence, this Court deems it fit to pass an order after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner and by Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent/State and after perusing the available records.2. The revision petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.43 of 2005, on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at ...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappan Vs. Rajamani.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER1. This criminal revision case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi on 17.08.2009 issuing process to the petitioner and three other persons in a case instituted by the respondent herein on private complaint, which was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi as C.C.No.260 of 2009 for alleged offences punishable under sections 379 and 427 IPC. The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate issuing summons under section 204 of Cr.P.C. is challenged in this criminal revision case by the revision petitioner, who figures as the 2nd accused in the said calender case.2. Notice before admission was issued and both the parties are represented by counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Perumal, representing the counsel on record for the revision petitioner and by Mr.A.Hajamohideen learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers and the records summoned from the co...
Tag this Judgment!Soundarajan Vs. Rajendran.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
PrayerCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to withdraw and transfer the case in C.C.No.13 of 2007, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai to be tried along with S.C.No.99 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Pudukkottai.ORDER1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C., for transfer of C.C.No.13 of 2007, pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai to the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Pudukkottai, for being tried together with S.C.No.99 of 2009, on its file.2. The case which is pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Pudukkottai is a sessions case, which had been committed by a Committal Magistrate following the procedure for committing the cases involving offences exclusively triable by a court of session, whereas, the case now sought to be transferr...
Tag this Judgment!P.Harikrishnan Vs. the Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
PRAYERW.A.(MD) No.614 of 2008 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.09.2008 made in W.P.No.1273 of 2006 on the file of the learned single Judge of this Court. W.A.(MD) No.710 of 2008 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.09.2008 made in W.P.No.8496 of 2008 on the file of the learned single Judge of this Court. W.P.(MD) No.13865 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pursuant to the notice issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/5233/2011 dated 23.11.2011 and the consequential resolution passed on 28.11.2011, to quash the same and to consequently permit the petitioner to function as Trustee of Arulmigu Easwari Bathrakaliamman Temple, Esanthangu, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. W.A.(MD) Nos.614 and 710 of 2008 are as against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sathya at Uma at Deivanai at Yasodha Vs. the State Rep by Deputy Super ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
G.M. AKBAR ALI,J.1. The petitioner is an accused stands charge sheeted for the offences under Section 3(5) of POTA 120(B) IPC r/w 3(2) of POTA 148 IPC (2), 333 IPC r/w 149 IPC, 307IPC r/w 149 IPC, 22(1)(a) r/w 22(5) of POTA, 387 IPC, 353 r/w 149 IPC.2. The Branch CID of Dharmapuri found the petitioner along with 32 others belonging to a Naxalite group, a banned organisation committed various offences including the offences coming under Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA Act) and charges were framed against 27 accused pending in CC No.5 of 2003.3. The petitioner was released on bail on 7.5.2005 and she was attending the Court regularly. She was absent from 23.5.2008 to 18.6.2009 and petition under Sec.317 Cr.P.C was filed and allowed. However, NBW was issued on 8.7.2009 and only on 30.4.2011 she was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the case is pending in Spl.C.C.No.5/2003 before the Sessions Court for Trial of Bomb Blast and POTA cases, Chennai at Poonamallee.4. She filed a ...
Tag this Judgment!P.Mariadoss Vs. the District Collector.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
O R D E RThe Honble Chief Justice & T.S.Sivagnanam, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein challenging the penalty imposed on them by the respondents on the ground of alleged illicit quarrying made by them. Since, common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. A summation and summarization of the relevant facts, which are necessary and germane for the disposal of these writ petitions, are as follows:-(i) W.P.No.1015 of 2011It is stated that in the year 2002, a stone quarry being Quarry No.9 to an extent of 5.00.0 hectares in S.No.99, Keerappakkam Village was brought for auction through public tender and a notification dated 14.12.2002 was issued by the District Collector/1st respondent in this regard. The petitioner submitted his tender in time. The tender was opened on 08.01.2003 and the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder in respect of Quarry No...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »