Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25. 06.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P.No.2718 of 2013 B.Sivashankar (a) Shankar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) F Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City. 3.The Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Department), North Block, New Delhi. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the entire records relating to petitioner's detention under the National Security Act, vide detention order dated 3.10.2013 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C.No.01/NSA/IS/2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner namely B.Sivashankar (a) Shankar, son of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:29. 07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.23932 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.Nos.9999 and 10000 of 2002 G.Ganapathisubramanian .. Petitioner Versus The Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006. .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in E.O.C.C.No.513 of 2002 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences Court, E.O.II, Chennai and quash the proceedings. For Petitioner : M/s. Ram and Ram For Respondent : Mr.K.Ramasamy Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement &&&&&&& ORDER The petitioner/accused No.7 has filed the above Criminal Original Petition No.23932 of 2002 to call for the records in E.O.C.C.No.513 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences Court, E.O.II , Chennai 8 and quash the same as against the petitioner.2. The prosecuti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2505
Janarthanam, J.1. The petitioner detenu Rukmani Devi Balasingam challenges the order of detention F. No. 801/13/90-PITNOPS dated 26-6-1990 passed by the Union of India represented by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under S. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with a view to preventing her from engaging in the possession, transportation and concealment of Narcotic Drugs. 2. On 19-5-1990, she, holder of Sri Lankan passport No. A. 187034 and bound for Colombo by Air Lanka Flight No. UL 132 came to the Customs Baggage Examination Hall at Trichy Airport for customs clearance. She was holding Air Lanka Flight Ticket No. 603 : 4400 : 280 : 283 : 5, for travels to Colombo. The Customs officials were already in receipt of credible information that she was to transport Narcotic Drugs illicitly by concealing them in the stem portion of Kuthuvilakhus (oil lamps used for r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC7
ORDER1. The detenues in both these cases since involved in the same adverse cases and in the ground incident, the date of representations and the procedure complied with, and the grounds urged assailing the orders of detention being the same, they are heard together and this common order is passed.2. The petitioner in HCP No.1207 of 1997 is the brother of the detenu and HCP No.1208 of 1997 is by the father of the detenu. Both the detenues came to the adverse notice of the respondents in as many as three cases registered in Crime No.412 of 1995 for offence under sections 147, 148, 326, 324, 307 and 302, IPC. Crime No.643 of 1997 for an offence under section 380 IPC and Crime No.681 of 1997 for an offence under section 395, IPC. The ground case relates to an incident which took place on 4.10.1997 at 8.30 hrs. when the detenues robbed one Selvem of Rs.100/- and also knifed him. The incident disrupted the traffic, caused alarm to the general public and a case was registered against the det...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad157; (1929)56MLJ458
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the decision of the District Judge of Bellary in an insolvency matter. The facts necessary to be set out are: In I.P. No. 9 of 1921 one Karugodu Seenappa Chetti was adjudged insolvent on 26th October, 1921. On 22nd December, 1925 a composition scheme in which all creditors named in the I.P. were to be paid at four annas in the rupee was approved by the Court and the adjudication was annulled. The scheme was based on a surety bond given by the present appellant, the effect of which will be considered later. By that date 16 out of 36 creditors named in the I.P. had proved their debts and were included in the scheme schedule. The present respondent was one of those who had not then proved his debt. The surety undertook to pay the creditors named in the scheme schedule the four-anna dividend provided by the scheme, and also to pay into Court such sums as the Court ordered to be paid to such creditors as the Court hereafter brought on to the scheme sched...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad231
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed on 9-11-1988 by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. Two matters came before him. The first one is having Diary No. 18070 of 1988 in an unnumbered Original Petition of 1988, Since the papers were returned by the office of this Court on the ground that after the establishment of the Family Court, the petition would lie only before that Court, the mailer was placed before the learned single Judge, upon the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the High Court has not lost jurisdiction on the matter.3. The second matter is Application No. 5607 of 1988 in O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987. O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 was filed by a Christian husband for a decree for divorce from his Christian wife, the first defendant therein. By way of Application No. 5607 of 1988, the wife prayed for the transfer of O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 to the Family Court on the contention that the High Courts jurisdiction in the matter has been p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1999CriLJ181; 1998(2)CTC651
ORDER1. Anja Match Industries and M/s. Bhavadharani Match Industries (A2 and A3), the petitioners herein, represented by their proprietor, A. Ramamoorthi, seeking to quash the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.550 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Sivakasi, has filed this petition requesting this court to invoke the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. M/s, South Indian Lucifer Match Works owned by P. Iyya Nadar Charitable Trust, represented by its power of Attorney Mr. S. Manoharan, filed a complaint on 18.9.1997 before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi against four persons and arrayed the petitioners as A2 and A3 for the offences under Sections 419 and 420, I.P.C. and under Sections 78(a) and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. This was referred to for investigation to the second respondent, the sub Inspector of Police, Sivakasi, under Section 156(3) CrP.C. On receipt of the same, the second respondent registered the case in Crime No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)IILLJ587Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. I have heard the arguments of Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. S. Thiruvenkataswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. K. Kanna, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 5 to 8 and have perused the records.2. The petitioner in this petition challenges the order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the second respondent wherein and by which he was given the sentence of dismissal from the Coast Guard.3. The petitioner joined the Coast Guard as an Assistant Commandant (Technical) which is Class I Group A Cadre, on 06.8.1989. On completion of his training and probation, he was posted to work in several Ships in the Western Command. Thereafter, he joined the Eastern Command on Board C.G.S. Jija Bai stationed near the Paradeep Port on 12.8.1993. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent was the Commanding O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(85)ECC215; 2002(139)ELT512(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioner is the Commissioner of Customs (Air), Customs House, Chennai. He has filed this writ petition, challenging the Admission Order No. 3 of 2001 (Cus.), dated 15-2-2001 of the first respondent. By the said order, the application filed under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Respondents 2 to 4 was entertained by the first respondent and the proceedings were allowed to be proceeded with under Section 127C(1) of the Act. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission/first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 127B of the Act.2. The brief facts, leading to the riling of the writ petition are as follows :-One M/s. Goutham Enterprises, 32-A Strotten Muthiah Mudali St., Chennai submitted a letter to the petitioner herein stating that they have received cargo arrival-cum-invoice notice from M/s. Emery World Wide, asking...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ1303
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the violation of principles of natural justice in not granting an opportunity to the appellant for cross-examination of the witnesses and that the findings and orders are based on inadmissible and flimsy evidence?2. Whether the Tribunal ignored the subjective satisfaction regarding the voluntary nature of statements, when the statement of the appellant was retracted at the earliest point of time and the appellant reported to the Magistrate about slapping by the Enforcement Officials, as held by the Supreme Court in KTMS Mohamed's case reported in 1992(3) SCC 178?3. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the absolute confiscation of Indian currency is not sustainable in law on mere presumptions in respect of the order of confiscation and the finding of contravention?4. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is invalid/non-est in law in view of the vi...
Tag this Judgment!