Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1471/2016 in Special S.C. No.5 of 2014 dated 27.09.2016 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Sec.21 of the National Investigation Agency Act of 2008, challenging the order of Special S.C. No.5 of 2014 dated 27.09.2016, by the Special Court, Puducherry, under the National Investigation Agency Act, declining to grant bail to the appellant herein, in the case in R.C.No.1/2014/NIA/HYD under Sec.307 IPC, Sec.4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 3. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that number of grounds were raised by the appellant before the trial Court in order to pers...
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
(Prayer in H.C.P.No.1642 of 2015: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner, R.Thiruselvam, son of K.Raman, aged about 33 years now confined in Central Prison, Madurai as a remand prisoner before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. H.C.P.No.2058 of 2015: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner, Karthik, Son of Vijayan, aged about 29 years, now confined in Central Prison, Madurai as a remand prisoner before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. H.C.P.No.2059 of 2015: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner, John Martin @ John, Son of Arokiam, aged about 24...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Appeal suit is filed under Order XLI, Rule 1 of C.P.C. and under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2008 made in O.S.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the District Judge/Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge/F.T.C.No.II, Tuticorin dated 08.01.200 in O.S.No.13 of 2006, dismissing the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.1,30,86,731/- with interest or for an alternative relief of specific performance. 2. The plaint averments are as follows: 2.1. The plaintiffs are carrying on business in handling liquid cargo by providing storage facilities in various Ports throughout India. In response to the tender notice dated 13.02.1998 of the defendant Port Trust as to the allotment of land on lease basis for creation of facilities like Warehouses, Tank Farms, Marine Workshop etc. the plaintiff submitted the tender for Tank Farms for stora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., by the appellants against the judgment in S.C.No.12 of 2001 dated 24.03.2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases at Poonamallee, Chennai.) Common Judgement: S. Nagamuthu.J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.246 of 2014 are the accused 2 to 5, 7 and 9; the appellant in Crl.A.No.252 of 2014 is the 8th accused; the appellant in Crl.A.no.253 of 2014 is the 6th accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.304 of 2014 is the 1st accused in S.C.No.12 of 2001 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Chennai at Poonamallee. They stood charged for various offences as detailed below:- ad>Charge No.AccusedSection of law1A.1120(B) I.P.C.,2A.2120(B), 148, 452, 398 332 r/w 149, 309 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.3A.3120(B), 148, 452, 332, 333, 307, 302, 398 r/w 149, 332 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C.4A.4120(B), 148, 452, 332, 307, 333, 332 r/w 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent's proceedings bearing Rc.No.1432/2012 [GandM], dated 28.04.2016 pertaining to the petitioner's lease hold patta land stone quarry measuring 2.37.5 hectares comprised in Survey S.F.No.164/2, 0.26.0 hectares in S.F.No.164/3, 0.27.0 hectares in S.F.No.165/4, and 1.05.0 hectares in S.F.No.165/5, totally measuring 3.95.5 hectares situated in Rakkathanpatti Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District and quash the same and direct the respondent to grant renewal of lease by reconsidering the petitioner's application dated 27.02.2012.) Challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 28.04.2016 rejecting the petitioner's application for granting of renewal of lease, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Additio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regulate the storage sale use and transport of fire crackers strictly as per the provisions of the Explosives Act 1884 and the rules framed thereunder under the Explosives Rules 2008 to see that during the festival season licence is not granted for sale of fire crackers in shops located nearby to hospitals schools temples etc. to adopt safety measures for sale of crackers by retail and wholesale and preventing loss of life.) 1. This is a suo motu public interest litigation initiated by this Court based on the newspaper report relating to the fire at Sivakasi shop killing eight persons, who were working in the scan centre situated by the side of the cracker shop and one person died subsequently. 2. When this matter came up for hearing on 21.10.2016, this Court passed the following order: Mr.N.Suthanthirarajan, M/s. Sri Ragavendra Fireworks shop,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry under section 9-A of the explosives act consequently direct the respondents 1 2 4 5 7 and 8 to pay compensation of Rs.30 00 000/- to the persons who lost their life in the accident happened Dhanalakshmi fire works Rs.15 00 000/- to the persons who lost their expenses incurred by them and Rs. 10 00 000/- to the persons who sustained simple injury in the accident.) Order: S. Nagamuthu,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation to the legal heirs of the victims, who lost their lives in the explosives factory at Olugacheri Village in Thanjavur District. 2. Earlier, when the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 26.10.2016, we passed the following order: This writ petition has been filed seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs per head to the fami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1980 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.260 of 2015 dated 21.03.2016 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai reversing the fair and decreetal order made in R.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2009 on the file of the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai dated 24.03.2015.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.260 of 2015 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai reversing the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2009 on the file of the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the landlord has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The petitioner/landlord filed the R.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2009 for eviction on the ground of demolition and re-construction and additional accommodation. 3. The brief case of the petitioner/landlord is as follows: (i) According to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 06.03.2015 in C.C.No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri.) 1. The Appellant/Defacto Complainant (P.W.1) has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 06.03.2015 in C.C.No.18 of 2014 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.18 of 2014 on 06.03.2015, at paragraph No.10, had, inter alia, observed that '... when no trust can be placed on the Prosecution evidence and when Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the Court cannot fix criminal liability on the Accused' and resultantly, found the Accused (R1 and R2/A1 and A2) not guilty in respect of the offences under Section 294(b), 324 I.P.C. and acquitted them of all the charges under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 3. Ch...
Tag this Judgment!