Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Feb-02-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the original impugned order in Reference No.Sattam/Sa3/9514/16, dated 9.12.2016 passed by the respondent and to quash the same as illegal, within the time contemplated in the provision of law, without delay.) Order: 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in Reference No.Sattam/Sa3/9514/16, dated 9.12.2016, rejecting the request of the petitioner to revoke the suspension, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as Senior Grade Conductor at Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai) Limited in Sivakasi Branch, the Petitioner was temporarily suspended from service on 11.12.2016, for misappropriation of Corporation fund to the tune of Rs.250/- by re-is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Feb-06-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order of suspension passed by him in Na.Ka.9892/2015 Tho.Ve.Koo.Sa. dated 09.12.2016 and quash the same as illegal and ultravires.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned order of suspension passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.9892/2015 Tho.Ve.Koo.Sa. dated 09.12.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as Secretary in the 3rd respondent society, an inspection was conducted based on a complaint that irregularities took place in Agricultural Loan Waiving Scheme in the society. In the inspection, it was found that the loan amount was waived for 19 survey numbers which were not found in the village records for the Fasli 1424 and 1425 and further there is no records showing cultivation of plantain in Saminatham and South Veerapandiapuram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-02-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment made in C.A.No.239 of 2012 on the file of the Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 03.07.2013 reversing the Judgment made in STC No.89 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore dated 20.07.2012 and convict the Accused.) The Appellant / Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 03.07.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2012 passed by the Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 2. The Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore while passing the Impugned Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2012 (filed by the Respondent / Accused) on 03.07.2013 at Paragraph No.16 had observed the following: 16. So in this circumstances it is the duty of the complainant to mention the correct particulars, about date, time and place of borrow. So in the absence of such ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-02-2017
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. Against the judgement and decree dated 31.10.2007 passed in O.S.No.66 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal.) 1. The second defendant in O.S.No.66 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal is the appellant. 2. The above suit was filed by the first respondent claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries and permanent disability suffered by her as a result of negligence and wrong treatment given in the Government Hospital at Karaikal. 3. The appellant/second defendant was working as a Specialist in Orthopedic Division at Government Hospital, Karaikal at the relevant point of time. According to the plaintiff on 26.1.1999 around 11.30 A.M. while she was returning from school after attending the Republic Day Celebration at Kamarajar Square, Karaikal, a cyclist who was coming in the opposite direction dashed against her. It is claimed that as a result...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the order dated 30.08.2016 passed in C.C.No.53/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam.) The Appellant/Complainant has focused the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the order dated 30.08.2016 in C.C.No.53/2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, while passing the order in C.C.No.53/2011 on 30.08.2016, had observed the following: Complainant absent. No representation. Bailable warrant pending. As the Complainant did not appear before this Court and take steps to proceed the case this Court issued notice to the complainant to appear today in D.No.1518/2016 on 26.07.2016 and that notice has been served and AD card received. The notice has been sent to the address mentioned in the complainant. This case is of the year 2011. Therefore, this Court constrained to dismiss this complaint under Section 256 of the Cr.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the Judgment dated 26.06.2013 is STC No. 395 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode and to allow this appeal.) 1. The Appellant/Complainant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the STC No. 395 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC, Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC, Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode) while passing the impugned Judgment in STC No. 395 of 2012 on 26.06.2013 at Paragraph Nos. 47 to 49 had clearly observed the following: 47. In this case, the evidence on record makes it abundantly clear that the accused has proved the defence taken by him by preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-2017
(Prayer: Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.16198 of 1999, dated 02.02.2009.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an order of dismissal of W.P.No.16198 of 1999, dated 02.02.2009, by which, the writ Court declined to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to promote the appellant, as Inspector of Police, CRPF, as per the approved list, 8/94, dated October, 1996, with all monetary benefits. 2. It is the case of the appellant that on 08.12.1988, he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police, in the Central Reserve Police Force (In short, "CRPF") and worked in several stations. During October' 1996, an approved list "E" (GD) vide 8/94, was prepared, for the purpose of promoting Sub-Inspectors of Police, to the post of Inspectors of Police. In the said list, the appellant was placed at Sl.No.3. However, the appellant was issued with a charge memo, dated 25.09.1996, in terms of section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-2017
1. Heard Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Appellant and Mr.R.Ravichandran, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent/Complainant. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2017 before this Court (as an aggrieved person) as against the Judgment dated 19.12.2016 in S.C.No.54 of 2016 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode. 3. The trial Court had found the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused guilty in respect of an offence under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. and accordingly, imposed a punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default of payment of fine, a default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year was also imposed. In fact, the trial Court had categorically observed in its Judgment that the deceased was of 70 years old and she was standing by catching the iron rod (stabled in the earth) and at that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-2017
(Prayer: WP No. 40240 of 2015:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration declaring that the search warrants dated 01.12.2015 and the search operations conducted by the respondents on 01.12.2015 at the premises of the petitioner company at Flat 3B, Balaji Apartments, 7/4, Nandanam Extension Main Road, Chennai - 600 035 and at the residential premises of the Directors of the Petitioner company and the consequential proceedings against the petitioner-company and its Directors are ultra vires and in excess of the powers conferred under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with Section 132 of the Income Tax, without authority of law, arbitrary, malafide, for a collateral purpose and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.) Common Order: 1. By consent of counsel on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The only point raised and argued in all these writ petitions is as re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-2017
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the judgment dated 05.01.2016 passed in S.C.No.233 of 2014, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.233 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. He stood charged for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 05.01.2016, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- [a] The deceased in this case was one Mr.Marappan. The accused is his brother. For quite some time, there was a misunderstanding betwee...
Tag this Judgment!