Court : Chennai Madurai
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This reference has been made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, raising as many as five questions of law for a decision by this court. Before going into the said questions, let us have a quick look into the back ground of the reference. 2. This is a case of death in a police encounter. The victim of the encounter was one Mr.Kittu @ Kittappa. The occurrence was on 13.06.2015. The police team was headed by a Sub Inspector of Police. He used a fire arm in the encounter. The said Sub Inspector of Police made a report about the occurrence upon which a case was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.119/2015 on the file of Suthamalli Police Station in Tirunelveli District. The said case was initially investigated by one Mr.N.Krishnaraj, the Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, Tirunelveli District. On his intimation, Mr.M.K.Mayakrishnan, the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, made in E.P.No.134/97 in HMOP.No.254/91 dated 13.11.2006.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, made in E.P.No.134/97 in HMOP.No.254/91 dated 13.11.2006, whereby, the petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the Court below. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent herein and the respondent herein had filed H.M.O.P.No.254 of 1991 before the Court below for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.59 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 2.1 Both the cases were tried jointly and ultimately, the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the petitioner's petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the second respondent in R.C.No.D2/23317/2016, dated 17.12.2016 and to quash the same as illegal.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 17.12.2016 cancelling the No Objection Certificate issued under the Explosives Act, 1884. 2. The case of the Petitioner, in short, is as follows: The Petitioner/Company is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and export of explosives for industrial purposes permitted under the Explosives Act, 1884. The Petitioner/company established a factory in Murangampatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. The said factory premises was established after obtaining all statutory permissions and clearances as required under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the rules made thereunder. The sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011 made in A.S.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2010 made in O.S.No.987 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.12 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.987 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur, the plaintiffs have filed the above Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.987 of 2005 to declare the registered sale deed dated 03.01.1994 in respect of the suit property executed by the defendants 1 to 5 in favour of the sixth defendant is null and void and consequently, directing the sixth defendant to surrender the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs 3 to 6. 3. The br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.293 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to call for the records in C.C.No.293 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri and quash the same. 2. It is averred in the petition that on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant on 08.02.2017, for the alleged occurrence, dated 10.12.2006, a case was registered by the first respondent in Cr.No.19 of 2007 for the offences under Section 457 and 380(NP) of I.P.C. The first respondent, after detailed investigation, filed final report by closing the complaint as mistake of fact on 09.02.2007. The second respondent/defacto complainant, in the mean time filed a Protest Petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, seeking a direction to reject the final report...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.181 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil dated 25.11.2011 in O.S.No.181 of 2009, decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. 2. The plaint averments are as follows: 2.1. The first defendant Sarjan Realities Private Limited is engaged in the business of purchasing, selling and otherwise dealing in land for itself and for others for setting up of wind farm projects. The second defendant is the Director of the first defendant company and third defendant is the power of attorney and authorised signatory of the first defendant company under power of attorney deed dated 27.06.2003. The third defendant, as the power of attorney ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(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 Madurai
(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
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.10880 of 2015 in C.C.No.11 of 2014 dated 29.04.2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar by allowing this Criminal Original Petition and to permit the petitioner/accused to recall P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 for the purpose of cross examination.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar in Crl.M.P.No.10880 of 2015 in C.C.No.11 of 2014 dated 29.04.2016. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/accused to recall P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 for cross-examination. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has failed to cross-examine those witnesses when they were examined in chief and unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli, to accept the surrender and consider the bail application to be filed the petitioner, on the same day on merits in Crime No.15 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police.) 1. This petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board, Tiruneveli, to accept the surrender of the petitioners and consider their bail application on the same day in connection with Crime No.15 of 2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent police. A case has been registered against the petitioners, who are juveniles, under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 355, 323 and 506(ii) IPC read with Sections 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents. 3. When a specific question was posed as...
Tag this Judgment!