Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Nov-14-2016
(Prayer: 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 proceedings issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/5383/2015, dated 10.07.2015 and posted on 22.07.2015, and quash the same.) Common Order: M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal as the subject matter of challenge is one and the same. 2. The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions would read, among other things, that the petitioners herein who are the husband and wife, have jointly availed the personal loan from the second respondent on 01.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.14,35,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Thirty Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 11% per annum and agreed to pay the same in an Equated Monthly Installment of Rs.24,995/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Five only) per month in the Loan Account No.42900154. 3. According to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Apr-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to reframe the syllabus from the next academic year so as to ensure that students have covered all the 1,330 couplets of Thirukkural by the time they step out of schools by including it as a separate subject for the academic years from at least VI to XII and pass the same as a policy decision of the Government.) 1. This writ petitioner, urging a personal cause has aroused a noble thought by seeking a writ of Mandamus to modify the syllabus in the schools for students between VI to XII Standard so as to ensure that they are acquainted and taught thoroughly with all the 1,330 couplets of Thirukkural so as to mould them morally sound. 2. The contention of the writ petitioner, a retired Government Official, is that in the recent times, the moral values have declined in the society. That apart, the general behaviour among youngesters in the society is lackin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Apr-20-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned rules communicated by the 3rd respondent in ROC 561 of 2006 dated 24.07.2006 and quash the same and forbearing I to III respondents from exercising enrolment and consequently direct the 4th respondent to take charge of enrolment of advocates as per section 58(1) of Advocates' Act, 1961.) N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. This case is only a tip of an iceberg, which reveals how full-time salaried employees/staff are working and simultaneously undergoing Law Degree Course elsewhere. The petitioner herein, is a person, who was working as a full-time Government employee, i.e, as a Junior Engineer in Agricultural Engineering Department, Thanjavur, from 17.03.1966 to 31.10.2001 and who was able to obtain a law degree, as if he had undergone the course from 1998-2001, as a regular student in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia College of Law, Bangal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Mar-23-2016
S. Manikumar, J. 1. A retired I.A. and A.S. Officer, has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash R.O.C.No.C3/26037/15, dated 02.03.2016 and consequently, prayed for a direction to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District to demolish the construction made in Survey No.174/9, Kottaram West Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, by respondents 3 to 5. He has also prayed for a direction to the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, respectively of Kanyakumari District, to remove the construction in Survey No.174/9, within a time frame. 2. According to the petitioner, he is native of Achankulam. Now, he is settled in Chennai and often, visit his native place, for his personal work. There is a temple called, ?Arulmighu Umayamman Temple? in Achankukalm. It is in Survey No.174/7. The village consists of Scheduled Caste Hindus, Nadars and Christians. There is a vacant place in Survey No.174/9, situated behind the said temple. East of that property, after the road, lies a CSI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Nov-07-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 30.11.2012, made in S.C.No.268 of 2010, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.268 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. He stood charged for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act. By judgment dated 30.11.2012, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Sep-26-2016
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the third accused in S.C.No.126 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. There were five other accused, who were arrayed as A1, A2 and A4 to A6. The trial Court framed as many as 3 charges against the accused. The first charge was against A1 to A5 under Section 148 IPC; the second charge was against A6 under Section 147 IPC and the third charge was against all the six accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 30.08.2007, the trial Court convicted the A1 to A5 under Sections 148 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The trial Court has also convicted A6 under Sections 147 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Oct-05-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction, dated 04.08.2015, made in S.C.No.375 of 2011, on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.) S. Nagamuthu, j 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.375 of 2011, on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 04.08.2015, the Trial Court convicted the accused, as detailed below:- Section of LawSentenceFine amount294(b)IPCTo undergo simpleimprisonment for one week.No fine.506(ii) IPCTo undergo simpleimprisonment for six months.No fine.302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment forlife.Rs.1,000/- in default toundergo simple imprisonment for three months. However, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The senten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Dec-01-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2005, made in A.S.No.118 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Trichirapalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2004, made in O.S.No.60 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Trichirapalli.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2005, made in A.S.No.118 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Trichirapalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2004, made in O.S.No.60 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Trichirapalli. 2. The appellant is the fourth defendant in O.S.No.60 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy, who lost in both the Courts below. The first respondent Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee Sri.K.Santhana Gopalakrishnan, is the plaintiff. The respondents 2 and 3, the Trustees of the first respondent, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 30.03.2015 made in S.C.No.9 of 2012, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Theni @ Periyakulam.) S. Nagamuthu, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.9 of 2012, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Theni @ Periyakulam. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 30.03.2015, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.Chandran. The accused is his brother. PW-2 and PW-3 are the other brothers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Sep-23-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 18.09.2010, made in S.C.No.92 of 2010, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Virudhunagar. ) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.92 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Virudhunagar. There were three other accused by name Karuppasamy, Senthilkumar and Muniyandi and they were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 respectively in the case. The trial Court framed as many as two charges against the accused. The first charge was against the first accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and the second charge was against the accused Nos.2 to 4 under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC. The trial Court convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 302 IPC and the accused 2 to 4 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment ...
Tag this Judgment!