Chennai Court June 2012 Judgments
Mir Hithayathullah Khan Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
PrayerWrit Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 13.3.2008 made in W.P.(MD) No.9246 of 2007 on the file of this Court.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J.1. Being aggrieved by dismissal of Writ Petition - W.P.(MD) No.9246 of 2007 and declining to quash charge memo (12.4.2004), appellant has preferred this appeal.2. From 1994, Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned Pre-Matric scholarships to children of those engaged in certain occupation i.e., scavenging, tanning and flaying. To avail the pre-Matric scholarships, applicant has to furnish a employment certificate from the Designated Officer in the Municipal Corporation and the Executive Officers in respect of Town Panchayats and Panchayat President in respect of Village Panchayats. In the year 1999-2000, complaints were received that bogus certificates were issued in the name of running tanneries and number of persons obtained pre-matric scholarship. After enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul sent a repor...
Tag this Judgment!K.Mathivanan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
PrayerWrit Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 9.1.2012 made in W.P.(MD) No.13213 of 2011 on the file of this Court.JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by B.RAJENDRAN,J.) 1. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 28.06.2012, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was not present. Therefore, the writ appeal was directed to be posted today under the caption "for dismissal". Even today, neither the appellant nor his counsel is present and no representation was made when the appeal was called under the caption "for dismissal". The respondents are represented by counsels and they are present.2. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed for default. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Anantha Pndian Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records connected with the order of detention passed of the first respondent herein in Memo No.2/2012 dated 10.02.2012 quashing the same and setting aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner herein, viz., Anantha Pandian, S/o.Arjunan and setting him at liberty now detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.)1. The petitioner is the detenu and he has come forward with this petition challenging the order of detention dated 10.02.2012 passed by the first respondent branding him as 'Black Marketeer'.2. The first respondent passed the detention order based on the adverse case registered against the petitioner in Crime No.577 of 2011 on the file of the Civil Supplies C.I.D., Chennai, for the contravention of the Section 3(1) of the Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale,...
Tag this Judgment!Balamurali and ors. Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2003, made in S.C.No.196 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Virudhachalam.J U D G M E N T1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2003, made in S.C.No.196 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Virudhachalam, whereby the accused A1 to A3 were convicted for the offence under Section 341 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.300/- each in default in payment to undergo one month simple imprisonment.2. The respondent police has filed a final report against the accused herein along with ten others under Sections 147, 448, 323 and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Properties (Loss and damage) prevention Act read with Section 149 IPC, stating that on 29.05.2000, around 8.35 a.m., the appellants and ten others, who are belonging to Dalit Pa...
Tag this Judgment!K.Subrahmanian Vs. the Inspector of Factories,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.ORDER1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram. The respondent is the complainant. It is a case instituted on a private complaint by the respondent alleging that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner has come up before this Court with this petition.2. According to the complainant, the company known as "Afcons Infrastructure Limited" has its factory at E.Kundaloor Village, Ulundurpet Taluk in Villupuram District. On 15.12.2007, the Inspector of Factories, Villupuram made surprise inspection to the said factory. During the said inspection, he found 85 workmen emp...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesan Vs. Poongavanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Prayer: This second appeal is filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.47 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, dated 11.02.2009 confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.140 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, dated 04.03.2005.J U D G M E N T1. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.140 of 2001 is the appellant. The above said suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 for partition of their 3/4th share in the suit properties.2. The case of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the respondents 1 and 2 are sisters and the appellant and the 3rd respondent are brothers and they are the children of Manicka Gounder. The items 1 to 3 of the properties mentioned in the schedule of O.S.No.140 of 2001 originally belonged to the brother of Narayani Ammal, namely Arunachala Gounder and he gave those properties as 'Sridhana' to his sister Narayani Ammal, the mother of the appellant and t...
Tag this Judgment!Pachamuthu Vs. State Rep. By, Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the orders passed in Crl.A.No.38 of 2009, dated 18.03.2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I, Salem) Salem and the order passed in C.C.No.101 of 2004, dated 28.04.2009 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem and to set-aside the same.ORDER1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The complainant / Revenue Divisional Officer had stated that the Government had issued a G.O.(Ms)No.1375, (Public and Law and Discipline) Department, dated 22.11.1996 to the District Collector, Salem. As per G.O., the case has been proceeded with. The prosecution case was that on 30.01.1996, the president of the Karumapuram Panchayat Union, had filed a complaint before the Karipatti Police Station stating that a television was missing from the Union Office. After receipt of the said complaint, on 30.01.1996, the case has been registered in Crime No.109 of 1996 for the offence under...
Tag this Judgment!D. Abraham Vs. Akila Thiruvidancore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Application No.4907 OF 2011 is filed under Order VI Rules 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., to implead the proposed party as the 4th defendant in the suit.COMMON ORDER1. The following are the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in Application No.4907 of 2011 by third party / applicant:-1.(a) The applicant is the Administrative Secretary of the Plaintiff Sangam and he filed this application to transpose him in the place of L.Noel Raj as the plaintiff or imposed him as 2nd plaintiff and to implead 4th defendant as party to the suit. The Sangam was registered society and as per resolution the Sangam authorised one L.Noel Raj to institute the present suit before the Court against the erstwhile President of the Sangam who is the first defendant. Based on the application filed after the institution of the suit, retired Judge Mr.A.Ramamurthy was appointed as an Interim Administrator, who is incharge of Sangam and Siddha College run by Sangam.1.(b) Mr.Noel Raj, the Dir...
Tag this Judgment!A.Kaliammal Vs. R.Saravanakumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order and decreetal order made in I.A.No.816 of 2010 in MCOP No.128 of 2003 dated 21.07.2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 21.07.2011 passed in I.A.No.816 of 2010 in MCOP No.128 of 2003, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Tersely and briefly, the germane facts in a few broad strokes, could be encapsulated thus:The victim of a motor vehicle accident, namely the respondents herein, filed MCOP claiming compensation. The revision petitioner herein was arrayed as the owner of the vehicle and no Insurance Company was arrayed as respondent. Even though the respondents received notice from the Court relating to MACTOP, the second respondent/Kaliammal did not appear owing to her ill health as alleged by her in the affidavit accompanying the affidavit to get the ex parte delay of 1400 days condo...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs.R.Vanaja Vs. Mr.Singamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 8.3.2012 passed by the District Judge, Thiruvallur, in O.S.S.R.No.2885 of 2001.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 8.3.2012 passed by the District Judge, Thiruvallur, in O.S.S.R.No.2885 of 2001 this revision petition has been filed.2. The long and short of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:The revision petitioner herein filed the plaint in O.S.S.R.No.2885 of 2001 with the following prayer:"to grant a judgement and decree against the defendants:a) for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property morefully described in the schedule hereunder consequentially directing the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming under them or acting on their behalf to hand over the possession of the schedule mentioned property within a stipulated period.b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »