Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Oct-28-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 1st respondent police to complete the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.65 of 2015 pending on the file of the 1st respondent within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to the firstt respondent police to complete the investigation and file a final report in Crime No.65 of 2015 pending on the file of the first respondent within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, a case has been registered in Crime No.65 of 2015 on 20.04.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r) and (s) 3(2) (va) SC/ST POA Amendment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Dec-16-2015
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.85 of 2006 dated 26.02.2007.) 1. This is a case of child rape. The appellant/accused is the sole accused in S.C.No.85 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli. The trial court framed two charges against the accused. He stood charged for offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC. By judgment dated 26.02.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant/accused under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 366 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-20-2015
(Prayer: Application is filed and the Judge's Summons issued under Order 14 Rule 8 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, read with Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) and Section 151 CPC, to reject the plaint in C.S.No.231 of 2004 and dismiss the suit. Civil Suit No.231 of 2004 is numbered and the plaint is filed under Order 4 Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, read with Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, praying to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants: (a) for a sum of Rs.2,44,91,565/- being the rental arrears due by the defendants as per the order of the learned Rent Controller from 28.04.1995 till January 2004, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation, and (b) for costs of the suit.) 1. The applicant is the first defendant in the suit which is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,44,91,565/- being the rental arrears due from the defendants as per the order of the learned Rent Controller from 28.04.1995...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-04-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st Respondent herein viz. the proceedings under Ref.No. RC.A3/1493/2015, Ref.No. RC.A3/1491/2015, Ref.No. RC.A3/1492/2015 and Ref.No. RC.A3/1492/2015 dated 23.10.2015 and quash the same.) Common Order 1. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondents and with their consent, the main writ petitions are taken up for hearing. 2. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 23.10.2015. 3. The petitioners are licencees under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981, having been granted licence in Form FL 3 which permits the petitioners to sell liquor in the Bar attached to its Hotel. In the State of Tamil Nadu, the only source for purchase of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) is through TASMAC Limited. Initially, tax was levied for A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-16-2015
(Prayer: W.A.No.857 of 2015 is preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 9.4.2015 passed in W.P. (MD) Nos.16935, 16986 and 17875 of 2014 and W.P. Nos. 33234 and 33235 of 2014.) Common Judgment: Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The instant appeals arise from the common order dated 9.4.2015 passed in W.P.Nos.16935, 16986, 17875, 33234 and 33235 of 2014. Notwithstanding service of notice and also names printed in the cause list, none has chosen to appear, except the respondent in W.A. No.857 of 2015. 2. The writ petitioners filed the writ petitions separately, seeking to quash the G.O.Ms.No.534, Home (Courts II) Department dated 5th August, 2014, wherein by notification the State Government, exercising powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Central Act 34 of 2008) read with sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, constituted a Special Court at Chennai (Poonamallee) for the trial of the following cases : ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-03-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015 in Crl.M.P.No.4323 of 2015 in Crime No.304 of 2015 and to issue direction to release the petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.304 of 2015 dated 1.8.2015 on the file of Central Crime Branch-II, EDF-III, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, in accordance with Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 pending disposal of this petition and during investigation and trial.) 1. A very interesting question of law has been raised by Mr.Amit Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, for determination by this Court in this Revision Case. For better appreciation, it may be apposite to state in brief the facts in this case. 2. (a) On a complaint lodged by one K.S.Kumar, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Nov-27-2015
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 13.12.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.11405 of 2005. Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 13.12.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.1059 of 2006. Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 13.12.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.3211 of 2006. Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 13.12.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.7093 of 2007. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned notification, issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1/2015, dated 26.03.2015 and quash the same as illegal.) Common Judgment: V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. While the four writ appeals on hand arise out of a common order passed by the learned Judge, either setting aside the cancellation of a licence or issuing a direction to renew the licence for the conduct of the weekl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-07-2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :07. 08.2015 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI W.P.(MD)No.9533 of 2015 M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 B.Ashok .. Petitioner vs.1. The Secretary, Ministry of Union Law and Justice, Government of India, New Delhi.2. The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.3. National Legal Knowledge Council, New Delhi.4. The Secretary, Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhavan, New Delhi.5. The Chairman, Legal Education Committee, Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhavan, New Delhi.6. The Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.7. The Secretary, Union Grants Commission, Bagadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.8. Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Rep. by its Registrar, Greames Road, Chennai.9. Thiru S.Prabakaran, A Hon'ble Member of One Man Committee, constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-26-2015
(Prayer: Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 18 days in filing this Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010 in O.S.No.150 of 2005 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner/Defendant/Appellant has projected the present Miscellaneous Petition under Or.41 R.3A of the Civil Procedure Code , praying for passing of an order by this Court to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the Appeal in A.S.SR.No.20590 of 2014 as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2010 in O.S.No.150 of 2005 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore. 2. The Averments in Miscellaneous Petition (Filed by the Petitioner/Defendant/Appellant): a) The entire suit was misconceived, devoid of merits and hinged upon two documents which were forged and fabricated by the Respondents/Plaintiffs to support their case. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-29-2015
(Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Circular No.14/2014 Acts Cell IV/13086/2014, dated 6.5.2014 issued by the 4th Respondent and to quash the same and to direct the 2nd Respondent to fix the rate of tickets for admission in each class in each Theatre within the State of Tamil Nadu such that the admission rate prescribed is inclusive of Entertainment Tax and consequently when the tax is exempted, the reduced price of admission after giving the benefit of the tax exemption to the viewer should be printed on the tickets and used by Theatre owners only after getting them sealed by the entertainment tax officer so as to ensure that the Theatre owners reduce the price charged on the consumers proportionate to the exempted tax amount and consequently direct the 5th Respondent to refund the excess sum of Rs.107/- collected from the Petitioner in ticket numbers 034389, 03490, 03491 purchased from the 5th Respondent for the ...
Tag this Judgment!