Court : Chennai Madurai
(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
(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
(Prayer: in W.P.(MD) No.16217 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.04.2015 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondent No.2 to allot 51 Fruit Shops to the petitioners at the newly constructed wholesale fruit market near Mattuthavani, Madurai, by following a fair method of allotment within the time period stipulated by this Court. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.22960 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ma.Va.3/037969/16 dated 02.11.2016 delivered on 24.11.2016 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same asillegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondent No.2 to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.19887 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned transfer order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.049797/W2/E1/2015 dated 08.09.2016 (served to the petitioner on 03.10.2016) and the consequential relieving order passed by the 4th respondent in her proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 161 of 2016 dated 03.10.2016 and quash the same as illegal. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.21806 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.049797/W2/E1/2015 dated 08.09.2016 and the consequential relieving order passed by the 3rd respondent in her proceedings in Na.Ka.No.150 of 2016 dated 16.09.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pose the petitioner in the 3rd respondent school.) Common Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st to 6th respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2015 and further direct the 1st to 6th respondents to withhold the license / permission of 7th respondent till the violations of rules are corrected.) S.S. Sundar, J. 1. This writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited person, for a Mandamus, to direct respondents 1 to 6, to consider his representation, dated 27.05.2015 and further to direct respondents 1 to 6, to withhold the license / permission granted to the 7th respondent, till the violation of rules are corrected. 2. It is to be noted that this petitioner had earlier filed a petition to implead himself as a party in an earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7553 of 2015 and after dismissal of the said Writ Petition as withdrawn, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in A.S.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2003 made in O.S.No.234 of 1998 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Pudukottai.) 1. The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. She filed the suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. The learned trial Judge, after trial decreed the suit with cost granting the reliefs of declaration and mandatory injunction and dismissed the suit in respect of the prayer for recovery of possession. As against the said decree of the trial court dated 22.10.2003 made in O.S.No.234/1998, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.28/2006 on the file of the lower appellate court (Sub court, Pudukottai). The learned lower appellate Judge allowed the appeal in part, confirmed the decree of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order, dated 23.09.2015 made in Cr.M.P.No.6204 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti and set aside the same as illegal.) 1. An husband, aggrieved by the dismissal of his Cr.M.P.No.6204 of 2014 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, has filed this revision. 2. The revision petitioner Ganesan married the first respondent Muthu Buvaneswari in 2006. Dispute arose between both. The wife claimed maintenance for herself and for her daughter and son, who are respondents 2 and 3 in M.C.No.12 of 2013 before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. 3. In the maintenance case, Ganesan filed Cr.M.P.No.6204 of 2014 for subjecting his wife and children to D.N.A test with regard to his paternity to respondents 2 and 3 through first respondent. 4. The learned Magistrate coming to the conc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(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
(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of Writ Court dated 03.09.2009, made in W.P.(MD)No.2950 of 2005.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. This is a classic case of victimization of a Headmistress, stated to be a spinster, on account of her refusal to comply with the direction of the Management of National Girls Higher Secondary School, Rasipuram, Salem, to promote the children of two influential persons. Even at the age of 74 and 16 years after retirement, this elderly person is still wandering in the corridors of this Court fighting against the mighty State and a highly influential Management of a private School. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The appellant was initially appointed as B.T. Assistant in Nadar Saraswathi Girls High School, Theni, on 05 June, 1963. Subsequently, she joined National Girls Higher Secondary School, as Headmistress on 05 June, 1967. It is the case of the appellant that she refused to promote two girl students who are the wards of two highly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
1. As these appeal bail petitions have been directed by connected accused in the same sessions case with reference to the same Judgment, they were tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. A1 / Saravanamuthu (Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3031 of 2016), A2 / Selvam (Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3030 of 2016) and A3 / Lakshmana Kumar (Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3029 of 2016 in S.C.No.158 of 2014, in the Court of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, while assailing their conviction and sentence, are seeking appeal bail. 3. Before the Trial Court, they stood charged under Sections 354, 342, 376 r/w 511, 323 (2 counts) I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(XI) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. 4. Appreciating the evidence let in, the Trial Court found them guilty and sentenced them as detailed below: AccusedConvictionSentenceA1354-B I.P.C.7 Years R.I. + Fine Rs.1,00,000/-, i/d 18 Months S.I.342 I.P.C.1 Year R.I. + Fine Rs.1,000/-, i/d 2 Months S.I.A2354-B I.P.C7 Years R.I. + Fine Rs....
Tag this Judgment!