Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-31-2009
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3142
ORDERA. Selvam, J.1. Challenge in this criminal revision case is to the order dated 06.03.2007 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3571 of 2006 in Calendar Case No. 30 of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam.2. The respondent herein as complainant has filed a final report, wherein the present criminal revision petitioner has been shown as accused.3. It is stated in the final report that the accused has committed offences under Sections 286, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 30 of the Arms Act and the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 19.05.2002.4. The final report has been taken on file in Calendar Case No. 30 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam.5. During the pendency of Calendar Case No. 30 of 2006, the present criminal revision petitioner as petitioner has filed the petition in question under Sections 239 read with 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it is stated that the respondent/complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-2009
Reported in : (2009)2MLJ589
K. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner's services were dispensed with by the order of the second respondent dated 07.6.1999 by exercising the power under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 read with Paragraph 521 (2)(b) of the Shastri Award. It was stated in the order that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 498A, IPC and imposed with a penalty of six months imprisonment and also convicted for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and imposed with a punishment of imprisonment for a period of six months together with a fine of Rs. 500/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. This was on account of the complaint given by petitioner's wife Mrs. Rajeswari before the All Women Police Station at Ramanathapuram and the same was registered in Crime No. 12 of 1999. Subsequently, the case was tried as C.C. No. 4 of 1996 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. After the trial, the petitioner was found guilty and was impose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Mad127; (2009)2MLJ396
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The petitioner is a citizen of India residing at Madras. His brother by name Mr. Rajiah John Premkumar was born and brought up in India. Later, he acquired citizenship of France and admittedly, he is no more a citizen of India. He resides in France. He holds French Passport bearing No. 03TF 750 95. Most of his relatives and family members reside in India. He has got a valid multiple entry visa dated 03.11.2003 issued by Indian High Commission in London, which expired on 02.11.2008.2. Mr. Rajiah John Premkumar came to India by flight No. LH 758 on 19.02.2008. But his landing at Chennai Airport was refused by the second respondent. He was served with an order of the second respondent directing the airport authorities to remove him by the same flight. Accordingly, he was deported to France by the same flight. The petitioner came to know that the first respondent had earlier issued an order restricting the petitioner's brother's entry into India without prior permis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Mad109
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Anim-adverting upon the order dated 3.6.2008 passed in I.A. No. 1996 of 2006 in O.P. No. 2680 of 2005 by the I Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, this revision petition is filed.2. The nutshell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The former filed FCOP No. 2680 of 2005 before the First Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, for divorce. During the pendency of the said O.P., the wife filed LA. No. 1996 of 2006 seeking interim maintenance, by invoking Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision petition is focussed by the husband on various grounds:3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would develop his argument to the effect that the lower Court was n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-20-2009
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3114; (2009)222CTR(Mad)470; [2009]309ITR277(Mad); [2009]179TAXMAN212(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Since common questions arise for consideration in the above Criminal Original Petition and in the above Criminal Revision Case both the cases are disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above cases are set-out below:(i) The petitioner is the accused in E.O.C.C. No. 263 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offence-I), Egmore, Chennai - 8. The respondent filed a complaint for the alleged offence under Section 35(B) of The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of non-filing of the Wealth Tax Return for the assessment year 1993-1994. The gist of the allegations are as under:(ii) The petitioner is the General Secretary of the political party-All India Anna Dravidar Munnetra Kazhagam (A.I.A.D.M.K.). Earlier she was a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). She was also the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during the period 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-22-2009
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ1095
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 47 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikundam are the appellants before this Court.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 47 of 1986 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.4. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 47 of 1986 is that the suit schedule properties belong to Mary Anaballah Luther Jesudasan who is in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia. The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the power of attorney agent of the above said Mary Anaballah Luther Jesudasan and on that basis, he has been cultivating the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff also registered his name as Cultivating Tenant in the Government records under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record and Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act X o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-30-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Mad91; (2009)6MLJ1108
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and final order passed in H.A.M.O.P. No. 443 of 2005, dated 26.09.2005, on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore and to allow the above Civil Revision Petition.2. The following are the allegations in brief found in the petition filed by the 2nd respondent:Both the petitioners are husband and wife. Their marriage was held on 25.08.1952. They had no children. The Respondent is the sister's husband of the 2nd petitioner. His wife is Pushpavalli. Their marriage took place in 1968. They have three daughters. Among them, the first daughter is one Vijaya. She was born on 13.03.1970. The 2nd and 3rd children Maheswari and Sarada are living with their parents. Pushpavalli died on 27.9.1994. The petitioners decided to adopt the said Vijaya for which the respondent agreed. On 5.7.1970, the adoption took place. It was not for any consideration. The petitioners got the capacity to take Vijaya in adoption an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-13-2009
Reported in : [2009]152CompCas116(Mad); [2009]92SCL133(Mad)
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision petitioners/R2 and R3/D2 and D3 have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 11.06.2008 in I.A.8812/08 in O.S.3737/08 passed by the learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, in granting ad interim injunction till 17.06.2008, on an application filed by the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.8812/08 has inter alia observed that 'the original minutes book was placed before me, It appears that the Company passed a resolution on 13.01.2006 itself not to allot shares. Primafacie case made out. Ad interim injunction is granted till 17.06.2008. Notice to the respondents, etc.,'3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/R2 and R3/D2 and D3 contends that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide on the issue inasmuch as the same issue is pending before the Company Law Board Bench, Southern Region, Chennai in C.P.94/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-06-2009
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(Mad)147; [2009]313ITR59(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2002 made in W.P. No. 33925 of 2002 of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, which was filed challenging the order of the third appellant refusing to exercise its power conferred under Section 279(2) of The Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as Act to compound the offence.2. The facts involved in this case is that the respondent herein was prosecuted by the appellants for the offence under Section 120-B, 420 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 278 of the Act before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Madras in EO C.C. No. 637 of 1985 and by order dated 30.11.1998, the said Court convicted and sentenced the respondent herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under each of the offences under Section 120B, 420 read with 109 of IPC and under Section 278 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-06-2009
Reported in : 2010CriLJ248
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. The legality and correctness of the successive orders issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the core question to be decided in this Writ Petition.Factual Matrix:Petitioner's Version:2. The petitioner is a member of Kallar community residing in Therkutheru Village in Melur Taluk of Madurai District. There is a well known temple in the said village known as 'Arulmigu Manthai Veeranasamy Temple' and the said temple is managed by the members of the five families belonging to the Kallar community. They have been managing the administration of the temple from time immemorial and the temple was treated as a private temple for all these years. There was a proceeding in O.A.No.89 of 1978 before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In the said original application preferred by the members of Kallar community (Ambalak...
Tag this Judgment!