Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Jun-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2016 and provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2016 and provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in Trichy and a social activist, fighting for the noble cause of common public. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed several RTI application, seeking information from various departments in order to bring out the shortfalls, on account of which, the petitioner is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Feb-16-2016
(Prayers in Crl.O.P.(MD)1785/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Sivagangai to accept the surrender of the petitioner in connection with the Crime No.644 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and to consider and pass orders in the bail application on the same day on surrender. Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)1941/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Thoothukudi to consider the petitioner's bail application and dispose of the bail application on the same day, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Thoothukudi in Crime No.25 of 2016 on the file of the respondent. Crl.O.P.(MD)2073/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Tuticorin to accept the surrender of the petitioner and consider the bail application on merits on the da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Apr-25-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.15151 of 2012, dated 19.12.2012.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Installation of a statue of V.O.Chidambaranar, a National Leader, in a patta land, belonging to a Uravinmurai Sangam, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, is opposed by the appellants, on the grounds that there would be a communal clash in the village, and hence not advisable, to erect a statue. G.O.No.248, Rural Development Department, dated 23.11.1998, is also invoked, to contend that permission from the Government is required. 2. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Srivilliputhoor Saiva Vellalar Sangam vs. The District Collector (W.P(MD)No.8935 of 2012, dated 29.08.2012), the Writ Court directed, unveiling of the statue of the National Leader V.O.Chidambaram(shortly V.O.C) at V.O.C Nagar, 15B, Periyasoorseri, Mettupatti Post, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. 3. Directions issued are assailed, on the grounds inter alia that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Apr-04-2016
Common Judgment: V. Ramasubramanian, J. History will find greatness in Felix Frankfurter as a justice, not because of the results he reached, but because of his attitude toward the process of decision. His guiding lights were detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means, no matter how noble the end and dedication to the Court as an institution. Because he was human, Justice Frankfurter did not always live up to his own ideal. But, he taught us the lesson that there is importance in the process (New York Times Editorial The Frankfurter Legacy, on September 2, 1962). 1. A very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Secretary, Political Department, Government of Meghalaya, Main Secretariat, Shillong Vs. High Court of Meghalaya through its Registrar, Shillong [Civil Appeal No. 2987 of 2016 dated 18.3.2016] began with the above quote. In the said decision, the Supreme court reminded all the Judges of this country about th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Sep-22-2016
(Prayer: CRL.A[MD].Nos.328 of 2014, 191 and 230 of 2015: Appeals are filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and conviction dated 10.09.2014 made in S.C.No.408 of 2011 on the file of the Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. Prayer in CRL.A[MD].No.54 of 2015: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the Judgment dated 10.09.2014, made in S.C.No.408 of 2011, on the file of the Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and enhance the sentence awarded to the accused Nos.3 and 4 to life sentence. Prayer in CRL.A[MD].No.82 of 2015: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the Judgment dated 10.09.2014, made in S.C.No.408 of 2011, on the file of the Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and set aside the same as illegal insofar as acquitting the respondents 2 and 3/accused Nos.5 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Apr-04-2016
(Prayer: APPEALS under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 26.11.2015 made in W.P.(MD)No.20559 of 2015.) V. Ramasubramanian,J : History will find greatness in Felix Frankfurter as a justice, not because of the results he reached, but because of his attitude toward the process of decision. His guiding lights were detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means, no matter how noble the end and dedication to the Court as an institution. Because he was human, Justice Frankfurter did not always live up to his own ideal. But, he taught us the lesson that there is importance in the process (New York Times Editorial The Frankfurter Legacy, on September 2, 1962). 1. A very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Secretary, Political Department, Government of Meghalaya, Main Secretariat, Shillong Vs. High Court of Meghalaya through its Registrar, Shillong [Civil Appeal No. 2987 of 2016 dated 18.3.2016] began w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Mar-17-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the order passed by the 1st respondent Tribunal dated 11.02.2016 in I.A.No.321 of 2016 in S.A.No.54 of 2016 in so far as the conditional order to pay Rs.40 lakhs in two installments and quash the same.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition, is to an order, made in I.A.No.321 of 2016 in S.A.No.54 of 2016, dated 11.02.2016, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, by which, the Tribunal has granted stay of confirmation of the sale fixed on 12.02.2016, subject to the condition that the writ petitioner has to make payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent/Bank, directly on or before 11.03.2016, as first installment and another payment of Rs.20,00,000/- as the second installment on or before 11.04.2016. 2. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, has also made it clear that in the event of failure to make single payment, ad-interi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Feb-24-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment dated 29.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.18 of 2010 by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai.) Common Judgment A. Selvam, J. 1. These Criminal Appeals have been directed against the convictions and sentences dated 29.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.18 of 2010 by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai. 2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous animosity on 03.05.2009 at about 07.40 p.m., in Nehru Nagar, Vilangudi in front of the house of one Periyasamy, the second accused has abetted the first accused to murder the deceased by name Karuppasamy. The first accused has tried to attack the deceased Karuppasamy and at that time one Muthu has tried to deter him, but the second accused has caught hold of him. The first accused has attacked one Bhuvaneswari and thereby caused injury on her person. During the course of occur...
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 : Nov-17-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2002 made in A.S.No.147 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 11.04.2001, made in O.S.No.133 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2002 made in A.S.No.147 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 11.04.2001, made in O.S.No.133 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The appellants are the defendants, who partly succeeded in both the Courts below. The respondent is the plaintiff. 3. Facts of the case: (i) The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.133 of 1998 before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, against the appellants, claiming a sum of Rs.1,88,227.50 towards subscription a...
Tag this Judgment!