Chennai Court May 2012 Judgments
G.G.Ramesh Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-25-2012
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.339 of 2012 on the file of first respondent herein and quash the same.O R D E R1. Seeking the elief of quashing the criminal proceedings in respect of the case in Crime No.339 of 2012 as against the petitioner, this petition has been filed after invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The petitioner is at present in prison. The 2nd respondent herein is the complainant and he is also present before this court. He has filed an affidavit saying that he came to know through the newspaper, as if he had given a complaint against the petitioner and others and on the basis of his complaint a case in Crime No.339 of 2012 under Sections 341 and 307 IPC has been registered against the petitioner and others. Now, he has submitted that he was just called to the police station and asked to sign a paper and in the later stage, his signature was utilised to fabr...
Tag this Judgment!D.Vijayakumari Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-24-2012
Prayer: PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records related to the Petitioner's husband's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 16.9.2011 on the file of the Second Respondent herein made in proceeding No.303/BDFGISSV/2011, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu K.Dhanasekaran, Son of Mr.Karuppathevar, before this Hon'ble Court and set the detenu at liberty, who is now detained in Central Prison, Vellore. ORDERM.VENUGOPAL,J.1. The Petitioner (wife of the detenu) has filed this Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition praying for issuance of a direction to call for the entire records related to her husband-K.Dhanasekaran's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as per detention order, dated 16.9.2011 on the file of the 2nd Respondent made in Proceeding No.303/BDFGISSV/ 2011 and to quash the same as illegal.2.T...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Dental Association Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-23-2012
V.DHANAPALAN,J.1. Heard Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Muthumni Doraisami, for vacate injunction petitioners in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2012 and respondents 16 and 18 in the Writ Petition; Mr.Isaac Mohanlal for vacate injunction petitioner in M.P.No.6 of 2012 and respondent 17 in the Writ Petition; Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran for first respondent/writ petitioner; Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General for Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, for respondent 2; Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, Additional Government Pleader for respondent 4; Mr.S.Yashwant, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent 5; Mr.Haha Mohideen Gisthi for respondent 7 and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for impleaded respondent.2. Indian Dental Association, represented by its Honorary State Secretary of Tamil Nadu Branch, has filed the Pro bono Publico, praying for a mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure and conduct admission of students to the Post Graduation Courses strictly...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppan Vs. Nagathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-17-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.83 of 1997 dated 10.02.1998 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Erode reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.886 of 1993 dated 02.09.1996 passed by the First Additional District Munsif, Erode.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellants/Defendants have projected the Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.83 of 1997, dated 10.02.1998 passed by the Learned Second Additional District Judge, Erode in reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.886 of 1993, dated 02.09.1996 passed by the First Additional District Munsif, Erode.2. After filing of the Second Appeal, the Second Appellant/Second Defendant (Perumal @ Pondan) has expired and his Legal Representatives (Petitioners No. 6 to 8) have been brought on record as Appellants/Defendants 6 to 8; also on the death of the fourth Appellant/fourth Defendant (Chinnan @ Silukkapattian), his Legal Representative (9th Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Lalithammal Vs. Rajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-2012
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.1991 in A.S.No.12 of 1989 on the file of the Learned Sub Court, Cuddalore, (A.S.No.95 of 1989 South Arcot District (Vacation) Court, Cuddalore) while modifying the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.692 of 1986 dated 28.03.1989 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Cuddalore.Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.1991 in A.S.No.14 of 1989 on the file of the Learned Sub Court, Cuddalore, (A.S.No.79 of 1989 South Arcot District (Vacation) Court, Cuddalore) while modifying the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.447 of 1988 dated 28.03.1989 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Cuddalore.COMMON JUDGMENTS.A.No.131 of 1993:1. The Appellant/Defendant (later deceased) has preferred the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.1991 in A.S.No.12 of 1989 passed by the Learn...
Tag this Judgment!Muthirayar Educational Society Vs. V.Giridharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S.No.95 of 2000, dated 26.02.2001, in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Learned II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, in O.S.No.374 of 1999, dated 14.07.2000.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellant/1st Respondent/Plaintiff has focused the instant Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in A.S.No.95 of 2000, dated 26.02.2001, in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Learned II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, in O.S.No.374 of 1999, dated 14.07.2000.The Plaint scenario:2. The Appellant/1st Respondent/Plaintiff is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, with Registration No.162/86. The Society has been formed and registered by the founder members with a view to bestow competitive examination for poor students to provide free...
Tag this Judgment!R. Devendiran Vs. Cce, (St) Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2012
1. Heard both sides. 2. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the entire amount of service tax demand and interest due thereon have been paid by the appellants partly before the issue of show cause notice and partly within one month of the issue of show cause notice and before passing the adjudicating order. Since the lower authorities did not accept the contention of the appellants to calculate the tax amount treating the value realized by the appellants as inclusive of tax, the balance amount of Rs.42000/- on that count also has been deposited by the appellants after filing the appeal before the Tribunal. She states that the appellants had not paid the tax amount earlier on account of their ignorance and not on account of any suppression, fraud etc. Even now, they are not disputing their tax liability. The appellants have not collected any tax amount from their customers, yet, they have promptly paid the tax amount soon after co...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ganesan Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-2012
PRAYERWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the third respondent from conducting post-mortem to the petitioner's wife namely Rukmani and consequently direct the second respondent to conduct post-mortem to his wife namely Rukmani, now kept in second respondent Hospital mortuary and submit post-mortem report before this Court and the fourth respondent for necessary action within the time stipulated by this Court.ORDER1. The petitioner is a coolie worker. His wife was doing tailoring work for their livelihood. They have two children. The petitioner had admitted his wife viz., Rukmani on 18/3/2011 at about 9 a.m., in Nagercoil Government Medical College Hospital for conducting Family Planning operation. On 19/3/2011, operation was conducted unsuccessfully. She became unconscious. According to the petitioner, instead of administering oxygen, the Medical Officials of the third respondent Hospital, administered Ni...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Gounder Vs. D.Sekar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-2012
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to issue a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode to entertain the complaint of the petitioner dated 08.02.2012 made in C.M.P.SR.No.625 of 2012 on his file and proceed in accordance with law as held in para 15 of the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in A.Vinayagam case [2000 (1) CTC 225].Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to issue a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode to entertain the complaint of the petitioner dated 08.02.2012 made in C.M.P.SR.No.627 of 2012 on his file and proceed in accordance with law as held in para 15 of the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in A.Vinayagam case [2000 (1) CTC 225].Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the docket order dated 07.08.2009 made in unnumbered C.C.SR No.2359 of 2009 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magi...
Tag this Judgment!R. Raghunandhan Vs M. Revathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the order and decretal dated 21.8.2006 passed in O.P.No.494 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai.JUDGMENT ( K. MOHAN RAM, J. )1. The appellant in the above appeal is the petitioner in O.P.No.494 of 2002 on the file of the Second Additional Family Court, Chennai.2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs at Chennai on 11.9.2000. After marriage, the appellant and the respondent stayed together at the respondent's parents house. Thereafter, the respondent was taken by the appellant to his house at Adayar.3. It is the case of the appellant that within four days after coming to Adayar, the respondent demanded from the appellant to change the house property standing in his mother's name to her name. When the appellant refused to accede to the respondent's demand, she refused to have intimate relationship with him. On 4.10.200...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »