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-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 : 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 : 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-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 : 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 : 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 : Aug-26-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.19 of 2016 in O.S.No.44 of 2013 dated 09.04.2016 on the file of the IV-Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 09.04.2016 in I.A.No.19 of 2016 in O.S.No.44 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to receive additional written statement, after posting the matter for arguments. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.44 of 2013 before the trial Court for partition. The petitioner was arrayed as fourth defendant. The petitioner filed his written statement and contested the suit on multiple grounds. 4. The trial Court after framing issues recorded the evidence of the parties. The matter was posted for arguments on 13.07.2015. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Aug-22-2016
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!