Court : Chennai
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C., to transfer the case in J.C.No. 74 of 2012 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Chennai, to any other District Juvenile Board.ORDER1. Children are our national asset. It is, therefore, the responsibility of everyone to ensure the dignity, safety and wellbeing of the children. It is, all the more, of vital importance that the human rights of the children are fully protected. The Children who come into conflict with law emerge as law breakers due to factors like poverty, hunger, social discard, environmental influence in the educational institutions, lack of care by parents and so on. The society shall approach them with compassion to channelize them to the mainstream of the society. Providing fair enquiry (trial) to such juvenile in conflict with law itself is a fundamental right and in other words, a human right. Such children have a right to express their defence freely. Alleging that fair enquiry has not been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to order dated 01.04.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.30 of 2011 in C.A.No.252 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court / Fast Track Court-I, Erode and set-aside the same.ORDER1. The history of the case is as follows:-The respondent herein had filed a case in C.C.No.29 of 2003, on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai against 8 accused for the alleged offence under Section 494 r/w 109 I.P.C. All the accused were convicted after trial. Against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.29 of 2003, dated 22.11.2007, the revision petitioner herein / A1 had filed a criminal appeal in C.A.No.252 of 2007, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Erode. While the appeal was pending, the revision petitioner herein had filed Crl.R.C.No.531 of 2008, before this Court to transfer the above appeal to some other Court. Subsequently, the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1971Mad309
1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 267 of 1966, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Srivilliputtur. The respondent, the Madras State Electricity Board, found on inspection of the plaintiff's premises on 3rd July 1958 and 1st December 1964 that seven lights of 40 watts each had been connected with power service in order to have the benefit of lower tariff. The test reports Exs. B-3 and B-4 were disputed by the petitioner on the ground that the signature of P.W. 1, its Managing partner, were obtained on blank forms. But the courts below negatived the said contention and relied on the test reports and the evidence of the Junior Engineer examined as the sole witness on the side of the Board. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of fact in this respect.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner, however, urged that there is no proof that the lights were burning, apart from the evidence of D.W. 1, the Junior Engineer, who made the inspection on 1st December 1964...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.46896/EW1/2010 dated 22.03.2011 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment order and training to the petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable/Jail Warden/Fire Servicemen for the year 2010.ORDER1. Seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.46896/EW1/2010 dated 22.03.2011, quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue appointment order and training to him to the post of Grade II Police Constable/Jail Warden/Fire Serviceman for the year 2010, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavit accompanying this petition, would run thus :(i) The petitioner has passed 12th Standard in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 29.3.2012, Public (Special.A) Department and to quash the same and to consequently quash G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 29.3.2012, Public (Special.A) Department and to direct the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.16, Public (Special.A) Department, dated 5.1.2011 appointing the petitioner as District Judge (Entry Level) in original seniority from the dat of his appointment and to accord such posting to the petitioner. (amended as per order dated 23.4.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.(MD) No.739 of 2012).ORDERP.JYOTHIMANI,J.1. It behooves us to give a short prelude to this case. The issue relating to appointment of District Judges (Entry Level) by way of direct recruitment came up for consideration in W.P.Nos.25778 and 26588 of 2010, wherein a notification issued by the Government in respect of the said appointments c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad368; (1953)1MLJ742
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant. In execution of a decree obtained on the foot of a mortgage the properties of the judgment-debtor were brought to sale on 1-4-1949 and the sale was confirmed on 3-5-1948. Subsequent to this confirmation, the Madras Legislature passed Act 23 of 1948 amending the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act in several respects. In view of these amendments, the appellant filed a petition E. A. No. 121 of 1949 in E.P. No. 131 of 1947 on 18-3-1949 to set aside the above-mentioned sale.The basis of this application is Section 23A. That section enacts:'Where in execution of any decree, any im-moveable property, in which any person entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948, had an interest, has been sold or foreclosed on or after 30-9-1947, and the sale had not been confirmed before the commencement of the said Act, (or 90 days, have not elapsed from the confirmation of the sale) or from the foreclosure, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDER1. This matter came to be listed on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 12.1.2011. The Writ Petition is yet to be admitted. However, Mrs.Jeyakumari, learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation takes notice for the respondent.2. The Writ Petitioner challenges an order passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act dated 8.7.2010 by the respondent. By the impugned order, the liability on the petitioner was fixed for the period from 1.6.2005 to 31.3.2006. It is claimed that the petitioner company has paid labour charges to the non-coded contractors and also paid contingency charges. For the balance sums of money, after a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, ESI Corporation determined the amount due and payable on the escaped contribution. The amount due from the company was fixed at Rs.61,74,211/-. Since already a sum of Rs.98,509/- was paid, the principal employer namely the petitioner was directed to pay balance of Rs.60,75,702/-. It is again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDER1. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to dispose of the matter are recapitulated below.2.1. The writ petitioner was declared as an institution deemed to be a university as per Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for brevity, "UGC Act") in August, 2002 and it is stated to have campuses and courses under its ambit situated at Chennai and Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh. As per the decision in a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court in Viplav Sharma v. Union of India (W.P.(Civil) No.142 of 2006), wherein the Supreme Court considered a dispute regarding the functioning of deemed universities all over India, the petitioner/University was categorised under 'B' category, whose recognition was made subject to review.2.2. On 28.8.2007, the petitioner has sent a proposal to the Ministry of Human Resource Development for creating a new campus in Tiruchirapalli to house a medical college and an engineering college under it as off-campus institutions. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
W.P.No.24078 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct repoll with respect to 239 booths inasmuch as the polling conducted with respect to 239 booths is marred by poll violence, booth capturing, rigging etc. Apart from the same being infringed in not conducting the same in a free and fair manner.W.P.No.24132 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the poll conducted to the booths in Ward Nos.48, 49, 76, 101, 103, 104, 107, 111, 117, 118, 122, 126, 130, 171, 172, 179, 184 and 193 in Chennai City Municipal Corporation mayor and councilor post as null and void and consequently directing the respondents to conduct re-poll to all the booths in Ward Nos.48, 49, 76, 101, 103, 104, 107, 111, 117, 118, 122, 126, 130, 171, 172, 179, 184 and 193 Chennai City Municipal Corporation Mayor and respective councilor posts and direct ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Appeal filed under Sec.34 of POTA Act against the Order in Cr.M.P.No.156 of 2011 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003 dated 12.7.2011 on the file of Sessions Court of Trial of Bomb Blast and POTA Cases, Chennai at Poonnamallee.JUDGMENTG.M. AKBAR ALI,J.1. The petitioner stands charge sheeted for the offence under Sec.3(5) of POTA, 120B IPC r/w 3(2)(b) of POTA and Sec.207, 149, 148, 333, 353 and 387 IPC.2. According to the respondent, the petitioner is an active member of the Radical Student Union, one of the front organisations of Maoist. All these radical groups had decided to organise an Arms Training Programme in a village near Dharmapuri on 23.11.2002. On receiving such information, the Inspector of Police, NSD Wing, Dharmapuri interrogated one Murugesan and arrested the said Murugesan and another by name Morten and a case has been registered by Uthangarai Police Station in Cr.No.1004 of 2002.3. Various persons were arrested and cases were also registered in Cr.No.1005 of 2002 and 1006 of 2002. ...
Tag this Judgment!