Chennai Court March 2012 Judgments
M. Balasubramanian Vs. the Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
O R D E RG.M. AKBAR ALI,J.,1. The petitioner was confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai on the basis of common judgment made in C.C No.9 of 2000 to C.C No.11 of 2000 and C.C.No.13 of 2000 to 51 of 2000 by the learned Additional Special Judge for CBI for offences under Sec.477-A, 468, r/w 471, 420 IPC and under Sec.13 (1)(d) r/w 13(1) (2) of PC Act. There are 41 cases. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in each case is detailed hereunder: S.NoConvicted for offences Sentence Fine (Rs.) Default Sentence1 477-A IPC 2 yrs R.I2 468 IPC 2 yrs R.I 1500/- 2 Months R.I3 468 r/w 471 IPC 2 yrs R.I 1500/- 2 Months R.I4 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act 2 years R.I 2000/-in each caseThe sentence of imprisonment in all the cases are ordered to run concurrently with a benefit of set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. However the total fine amount payable was Rs. 2,10,000/- The default sentence will run to 252 months. The relief sought in this petition is to order the default sentence to...
Tag this Judgment!K.Rajendran Vs. Elumalai Chettiyar (Died)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
J U D G M E N TC.NAGAPPAN, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2009 passed in C.S.No.425 of 1998 on the file of this Court, by the learned single Judge. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit as indigent person seeking for a Declaration that 'B' and 'C' schedule properties belong to him; to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the suit properties to him; and to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- towards the past damages and also future damages at the same rate together with the costs of the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated as follows:(i) Parasurama Chettiar married Kuttiammal and they had no issues. Parasurama Chettiar was running a Maligai shop as well as hardware business at Madras and also doing money lending business and by his own exertions, he acquired number of properties including houses and landed properties. Parasurama Chettiar was having a brother by name Natesa Chettiar. Kuttiammal ha...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
JUDGMENT1. Following is the brief account of the prosecution case :-[a] P.W.1 is wife of first accused. Second accused is mother of A1. The marriage of first accused with P.W.1 was celebrated on 9.11.98 in Naidu Mahajana Sangam at Trichy. On 26.8.1998 betrothal was celebrated for which P.W.2, father of P.W.1 spent about Rs.50,000/- . For marriage he spent around Rs.2,00,000/- besides offering dowry of 40 sovereigns of gold jewels to P.W.1 and 10 sovereigns of gold jewels to bridegroom and also he paid Rs.15,000/- for his dress. He also provided household articles. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint with the respondent police narrating the events which happened aftermath their marriage. Both parents of A1 used to find fault with P.W.1 even for petty things and subject her to cruelty and they prevented to speak to her parents. One month after marriage she was conceived and they adopted so many ways to abort the pregnancy by giving medicines, papaya, gingili, etc., But she avoided them. When h...
Tag this Judgment!S.Lakshmi Vs. C.K.Shankar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
COMMON JUDGEMENT1. As all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same accident and the common Judgement and Decree, they are disposed of by this common judgement.2. CMA.No.1908/2009 is filed by the claimants in MACT.OP.No.5621/2003, who are wife, daughters and son of the deceased K.S.Shanmugam, who died in the accident that had occurred on 2.10.2003, against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2008 made in by the learned V Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai for enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit.3. CMA.No.1909/2009 is filed by the injured claimant S.Yesotha Mathi, in MACT.OP.No.5208/2003, who sustained grievous injuries in the same accident, against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2008 made in MACT.OP.No.5208/2003 by the learned V Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai, for enhancement of compensation of Rs.89,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran Vs. Paravasudevan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., praying this Court to call for the records in C.C.No.13 of 2007,dated 14.12.2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai thereby discharging the accused under Section 249 Cr.P.C and to reverse the order passed by the Court below and to restore the complaint on file and direct the trial court to dispose of the same in accordance with law.ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai made in C.C.No.13 of 2007, on the file of his Court. The said order was passed on 14.12.2011 under Section 249 Cr.P.C., discharging the accused therein, who are the respondents in the revision case and dismissing the complaint. Questioning the correctness and legality of the said order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the present revision case has been filed. The revision petitioner is the complainant on whose private complaint t...
Tag this Judgment!A.Krishnamachari Vs. Secretary to Government.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
PrayerWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from putting up any new construction, Kalaiarangam in the temple premises of Arulmighu Kattazaghiyasingar temple.ORDER1. The decision taken by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, to construct an auditorium within the temple precincts of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam, pursuant to the representation submitted by the local people of Srirangam to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu made the petitioner to file this Writ Petition.BACKGROUND:2. The petitioner is a Vaishnavite and a permanent resident of Srirangam. According to the petitioner, Srirangam Temple is spread over a large area. The sanctum sanctorum is about 250 feet away from the main entrance. The compound wall is in a very good condition. The northern side of the main entrance was recently demolished by the temple administration, so as to facilitat...
Tag this Judgment!M.Palanimuthu Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
PrayerPetition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide reservation allotment and announcement of reserved constituencies for women SCs & STs in all Vice Chairman/Vice President posts in the Local bodies and Municipalities and Chairman for standing committees according to 33% reservation to women and 22.5% reservation to SCs & STs pursuant to my representation dated 23.09.2011 and forbear the respondents from conducting the election to all Vice Chairman/Vice President posts in the Local bodies and Municipalities and Chairman for standing committees till the reservation streamlined.ORDERD.MURUGESAN, J.1. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court. He has filed this pro bono publico petition seeking for a direction to the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and the Chief Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, Chennai to provide...
Tag this Judgment!Marthandam Hindu Primary School Vs. the District Elementary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for entire records connected with the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.1147/A1/2010, dated 20.07.2010 and consequential order passed in Na.Ka.No.1147/A1/2010, dated 07.10.2010 by the second respondent and quash the same and directing the first respondent to approve the appointment of Saravana Kalai Jyothi the secondary grade teacher from the date of her appointment 08.04.2010 in the petitioner's school with all consequential benefits.ORDER1. The prayer in the Writ petition is to quash the order dated 07.10.2010 rejecting approval of appointment of one Saravana Kalai Jyothi as Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner school from 08.04.2010 and direct the first respondent to approve the said appointment with effect from 08.04.2010.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner school is a recognised private aided primary school governed by the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!M.Devamani Christober Vs. the Madurai Kamaraj University
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
PrayerWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and grant approval of the petitioner's educational qualification to be appointed as the Principal and Secretary of the Amercian College, Madurai considering the application preferred by the petitioner to the respondent dated 14.11.2011, within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.ORDER1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Mahendran, learned counsel for the first respondent University and Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned counsel for the impleaded second respondent.2. The petitioner has prayed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the first respondent herein to consider and grant approval of the petitioner educational qualification to be appointed as the Principal and Secretary of the American College, Madurai, consid...
Tag this Judgment!iyyakannu Vs. Subramanian.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
J U D G M E N T1. The Appellants/Defendants have focused this instant Second Appeal adverting upon the Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.1998 in A.S.No.290 of 1996 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kallakurichi in affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.1995 in O.S.No.318 of 1990 passed by the Learned Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi.2.The First Appellate Court, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.290 of 1996 (A.S.No.231 of 1995 on the file of the Villupuram District) on 21.04.1998, has, inter alia opined that 'the Respondent/Plaintiff has improved the suit property and has been in enjoyment of the same and also based on Ex.A.1 Assignment Order, the suit property has remained as a separate property of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Further, it has also observed that the suit property has been in enjoyment of the Respondent/Plaintiff based on Ex.A.1 Assignment Order dated 10.04.1980 and the enjoyment has also been established as per Exs.A.2 to A.8. Moreover, i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »