Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC19
ORDERN.V. Balasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue a writ or Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent and to quash the show-cause notice issued by the General Manager, Industrial Relations Section, Personnel Wing, Head Office, Canara Bank, Bangalore in his Ref. No. IRS.DP.MC.CHF. 3503:VRI: dated 2.11.1991.2. The petitioner joined the service in Canara Bank in the year 1975 as an Officer Trainee, and she was promoted to the post of Manager in the year 1983. While she was functioning as Manager of Abiramapuram Branch of Canara Bank, Madras during the year 1986, she was suspended on the charges that she has passed certain cheques which were ultimately found to be forged ones. The substance of the criminal case initiated against the petitioner is as under: 'During the period of her service as Second Line Manager in Abiramapuram Branch, Madras, one Mukunthan was also working as a Clerk. In the said bran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007CriLJ4100; 2007(4)CTC412
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the Interlocutory Order, dated 12.12.2002 made in C.M.P.No. 778 of 2002 in STC No. 68/90 on the file of the Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Coimbatore.2. The revision petitioner is the accused No. 1 in the case pending before the court below. The first respondent herein filed the criminal complaint under Section 200(a) of Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the accused had contravened and violated Section 19(1) of Fertiliser Control Order 1985 and that the same is punishable Under Section 7(i) and (ii) of Essential Commodities Act.3. The first respondent / complainant had filed the Interlocutory Application in C.M.P.No. 778 of 2002 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further examination, for which, it is stated by the first respondent, before the trial court, that due to inadvertence, while P.W.1, Agricultural Officer Thiru. Iqbal was examined...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 51Ind.Cas.468; (1919)37MLJ60
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is an application praying to quash the order of commitment passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate in Calendar Case No. 4556 of 1919. The commitment was made to the High Court Sessions. The application is made under Sections 215 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. The offences with which the petitioners are charged relate to acts of kidnapping and theft committed in Madras and the offence of murder committed on the Avadi-Poonamalle Road within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court of Chingleput. They all formed parts of the same transaction.2. So far as the objection based on the alleged want of jurisdiction of the Chief Presidency Magistrate over the offences which took place on the Avadi-Poonamallee Road are concerned, that defect, assuming it to exist, is clearly cured by Section 531 Criminal Procedure Code.3. Then there is the more serious question, that is, the commitment having been made to this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1992]197ITR696(Mad)
S.A. Kader, J.1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-in-charge, Tiruchi, forwarding the complaint given by the petitioner to the Inspector of Police for investigation, to recall the complaint and direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with it in accordance with law. The complainant is the petitioner. 2. The complainant is the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Tiruchirappalli. He has filed a criminal prosecution against one M/s. T. Palaniappan and two others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchi, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The offences alleged against the accused are in respect of the return of income filed by them which was found to be false. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996CriLJ4370
ORDER1. Petitioner Selvaraj preferred a private complaint against the respondents before Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, in S.T.R. No. 1933/91 alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34, I.P.C. First respondent herein was shown as A-2, while the second respondent was arrayed as A-1. The sum and substance of the complaint as can be discerned from the averments made, is that on 2-3-1991 at 11 a.m., the complainant (Petitioner) received a letter dated 26-7-1991 from the second respondent herein. Since the complainant had some eye problem, the asked his friend A. Gopal cited as witness No. 2 in the complaint, to read the contents of the said letter. The complainant was shocked and surprised to note the imputations allegedly made against him by the first respondent herein in the presence of the second respondent. The contents of the letter show that the first respondent herein had stated that the complainant was an international fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2007]137CompCas406(Mad)
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. This petition is filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 75 of 2002, taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram, as far as these petitioners are concerned.2. The petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 39 and 44(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 1910.3. The core allegation in the complaint is that the first accused company called as M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd., its directors Sushilkumar Bhuwalka/A4 and Sharad Dalmia/A8 in whose name the service connection stands are responsible for the theft of electricity and causing loss thereby to the tune of Rs. 1,20,92,004.4. A-1, A-4 and A-12 are not petitioners herein. As far as SureshKumar Bhuwalka is concerned he has been arrayed as second accused, as he is the managing director of the first accused company, M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd.5. Memo has been filed by learned Counsel for the petitioners not pressing the prayer of the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(1998)DMC634
Jayarama Chouta, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner against the order of maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Eranial in M.C. No. 18 of 1989 which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40 of 1993.2. The respondents who are wife and daughter of the petitioner filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner for maintenance of Rs. 400/- to the wife and Rs. 350/- to the child. A counter has been filed on behalf of the husband wherein he has admitted the relationship. However, he has stated that the first respondent (Wife) is employed as a teacher, and she has been drawing a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. There is no question of the respondents living in poverty, and respondent is working for the last 11 years. He has also stated that he is ready to produce the receipts to prove that the respondent is drawing salary. On beha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :25. 03.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23293 of 2014 1.S.Vaikundarajan 2.S.Jegadeesan ... Petitioners/ A-6 & A-7 Vs. 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chennai. (Cr.No.MA1 2012 A055 2.The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chennai. ... Respondents/ Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in F.I.R.No.RC MA12012 A0055on the file of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.K.Subramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases * * * * * Date of reserving the Order :18. 03.2015 Date of delivering the Order :25. 03.2015 :O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:25.9.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Crl.R.C.(MD) No.755 of 2013 Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.48, 82, 101 & 124 of 2014, M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Crl.R.C(MD)SR19882of 2013, M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 in Crl.R.C.(MD) SR548of 2014, Crl.R.C (MD) SR7528of 2014 & Crl.R.C.(MD) SR179202014 M.Krishnan .. Petitioner in Crl.RC.(MD)No.755/13 K.Arunkumar Petitioners in K.Jeevan .. Crl.RC.(MD)No.48/14 V.Kumaresan .. Petitioner in Crl.RC.(MD)No.82/14 D.Anbananth .. Petitioner in Crl.RC.(MD)No.101/14 Ahmed Nayeem Petitioners in Mohamed Firdouse .. Crl.RC.(MD)No.124/14 P.Bharath .. Petitioner in MP(MD). No.1/2013 in Crl.R.C(MD) (SR)No.19882/13 Silambam .. Petitioner in MP(MD). No.1/2014 in Crl.R.C. (MD)(SR)No.548/2014 M.Vincent Raj (a) Wilson Raj .. Petitioner in MP(MD) No.1/2014 in Crl.R.C. (MD)(SR)No.7528/2014 M.Ramu .. Petitioner in MP(MD). No.1/2014 in Crl.R.C. (MD)(SR)No.17920/2014 Vs. The State throu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ9
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition was preferred by petitioner for a declaration that the Letter Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865, issued under Acts 24 and 25 of Victoria Chapter 104 containing 45 clauses forming part of the Rules of the High Court, Madras (Original Side) as null and void and for appropriate orders.2. Before discussing the stand taken by the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that by the amended Letters Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865, the High Court of Judicature at Madras was established, as evident from the preamble to the Letters Patent in question and quoted below and, thereby, the petitioner has practically challenged the establishment of the High Court before the same High Court:For the High Court of Judicature for the Presidency of Madras(28th December, 1865)Recitals of Acts 24 and 25 vic. C 104 - Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. To all to whom these presents hall come, greeti...
Tag this Judgment!