Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Oct 23 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

V. Murugesan vs State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Rayappanpatti Police Station, Theni District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Oct 2014]

Palpandi vs Sub Inspector of Police, Kadupatti Police Station, Madurai District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Oct 2014]

Kaliyappan vs Inspector of Police, Vasudevanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 13 Oct 2014]

V. Malar Mallika vs Regional Transport Authority, Salem and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 07 Oct 2014]

G. Sumathi vs Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and another  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Sep 2014]

M. Esakki S/o Muthupandi Thevar vs Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Sep 2014]
Administrative - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code ,1860, ss. 147, 379, 341, 294(b) and 302 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1959, ss. 4(1)(ii)(A), 21(1)(v) - Preventive detention order - Legality - Detenue allegedly committed offence u/ss. 341, 294(b), 302 and 147, 379 of IPC r/w 4(1)(ii)(A) and s. 21(1)(v) of the Act and involved in 3 adverse cases and 1 ground case - Petitioner brother of detenu, filed instant present u/art. 226 of Constitution to set aside the order passed by respondent no. 2 and to produce the detenu, who was presently confined at Central Prison, and set him at liberty - Whether impugned order of detention was passed in accordance with the provisions of Act 14 of 1982 was passed on proper and valid grounds.

Held, petitioner submitted that certain copies furnished by respondents are not legible, on the perusal of the same, it could be seen that the copies are readable and also understandable. Further, petitioner submitted that the ground case is not at all connected in respect of similar in nature with the adverse cases. However, it is seen that the detenu is an, FIR named, accused in the ground case. In instant case, it is found that the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention Order based upon the relevant and material records, and also for a valid purpose. It is seen that the copies which form the ground for detention have been supplied and no prejudice has been caused to the detenu. Further, detenu himself has made an acknowledgment that the detention order and grounds of detention have been supplied to him and therefore, it could not be treated as non-furnishing of a document or furnishing of a document the translation of which is needed. It is found that the respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order, in accordance with Law. Petition dismissed.

Ratio - When the subjective satisfaction is well based on the case which either ended in conviction or which the accused in facing trial at the time of passing the orders, the said satisfaction arrived at by the authority cannot be termed as wrong.


Shanthi Builders vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 25 Sep 2014]

K. Jebakumar vs Director General of Police, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Sep 2014]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 294 - Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition)Act, 1986, ss. 3, 4, 6 - Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956, s. 3 - Indecent representation - Complaint - Initiation of investigation - Petitioner filed petition alleging that respondents committed offences u/ss. 292, 293, 294 r/w s. 109 of IPC, 1986 Act and 1956 Act - HC directed respondent no. 1 to investigate petitioner's complaint - Respondent no.1 did not act as per directions of Court - Hence, instant petition.

Held, though the petitioner would contend that the allegations make out the offences and there should be a direction to register the FIR, a counter arguments have been made about the non-maintainability of the petition. As rightly contended by respondent nos. 7, 8 and 10, second petition for registration of FIR is not maintainable. However, FIR was already registered, based on the petitioner's complaint. As the FIR has been registered already based on the petitioner's complaint, the petition has become infructuous. Petition dismissed.

Ratio - Second petition for registration of FIR is not maintainable.


Solai vs Periyakaruppan and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Sep 2014]
Land & Property - Practice & Procedure - Suit for partition - Marking of unregistered document - Respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for partition and separate possession of respondents' 2/3rd share in suit property - Petitioner (defendant no. 19) filed an application for marking an unregistered documents, for collateral purpose - Trial Court dismissed the application - Hence, instant revision petition - Petitioner contended that an unregistered document could be marked and relied on for collateral purpose.

Held, an unregistered, unstamped document can be marked and relied on by the party for collateral purpose. It is also well settled that the Courts must mark an unregistered, unstamped document subject to the objection by the opposite party. The Courts should not shut down the evidence at the threshold itself. At the time of final decision only, the Courts must consider the evidence based on the document and objections by the opposite party. If the Courts come to the conclusion that the objection with regard to document is sustainable, then the said document and evidence based on the said document must be rejected. The Trial Judge committed irregularity by rejecting the marking of documents at the threshold itself. The Trial Judge ought to have marked the documents subject to the objections as per well settled law. Impugned order is liable to be set aside. Revision allowed.

Ratio - Courts must mark an unregistered, unstamped document subject to the objection by the opposite party. The Courts should not shut down the evidence at the threshold itself.


(1) Dean, Velammal Medical College, Madurai; (2) E. Sneha Preethi vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Sep 2014]
Education - MBBS Course - Denial of admission - Petitioner alleged that respondent no. 7 malafidely denied her admission into M.B.B.S. Course in the self-financing medical colleges under management quota - Petitioner made a complaint to respondent no. 5 who in turn, by a communication directed respondent no. 7 to offer their remarks, forthwith, by fax. Respondent no. 7 unlawfully denied the seat to petitioner - Aggrieved petitioner file a petition before HC, which was dismissed - Hence, instant appeal.

Held, appellant in W.A.(MD)no. 948 of 2014, shall comply with the conditions as stipulated in column nos. 9 and 11(b) of the Prospectus and produce all the relevant original certificates before the College, on 26-9-2014, before 04.00 p.m., without fail. On such production of all the relevant original certificates as directed, appellant in W.A.(MD) no. 922 of 2014, shall admit the appellant in W.A(MD)no. 948 of 2014, in M.B.B.S., Course 2014-2015, after collecting necessary fees as fixed by the Fee Committee. Appeals disposed of.


Conservation Assistant, Gingee Fort Archaeological Survey of India, Gingee and another vs Ramachandira Ramanuja Dasar S/o Thangavel Gounder and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Sep 2014]

C. Vinoba and others vs Commissioner Palladam Municipality and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Sep 2014]

Sundaram and others vs Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Sep 2014]

(1) N. Rajagopal; (2) A. Swaminathan vs (1) Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai; (2) Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur; (3) Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Sep 2014]
Service - Denial of retirement benefits - Justifiability - Petitioners filed instant petitions seeking to direct the respondents to pay 18% interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits and other monetary benefits from the date of retirement till realization and also to pay an adequate compensation to the petitioners for the illegal departmental proceedings initiated against them -

Held, petitioners were not allowed to retire on the date of superannuation, due to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. After the Administrative Tribunal set aside the charge memo on 11-7-2002, the respondents filed writ petitions, which were dismissed by HC, on 29-8-2007 and 3-9-2007. After dismissal of writ petitions, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.3288 of 2009, by the order dt.15-7-2008, was allowed to retire. The respondents have taken eleven months' time for passing orders allowing the petitioner to retire. Contention of the respondent that terminal benefits are paid within 3 months from the date of allowing him to retire and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to interest is untenable and unsustainable. The petitioner is entitled to interest on the terminal benefits from the date of dismissal of writ petition. Therefore, the contention of respondent that terminal benefits are paid within three months from the date of allowing him to retire and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to interest is untenable and unsustainable. The petitioner is entitled to interest on the terminal benefits from the date of dismissal of writ petition. Petitions partly allowed.


K. Dhanasekar vs District Collector, Kancheepuram District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Sep 2014]

Ashok Muthana vs Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Regional Passport Office, Chennai and another  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Sep 2014]

S. Annamalai vs Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Sep 2014]

D. Loganathan vs Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur Dam, Salem District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Sep 2014]

S. Balakrishnan vs A. Malaimegu and another  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Sep 2014]

Chandramohan vs State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk P.S., Thanjavur District and another  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 22 Sep 2014]

In Re : Arjun Neelakantan vs   [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 22 Sep 2014]

(1) Subbiah; (2) Santhakumari vs Alagarsami (Died) and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 22 Sep 2014]

Attavanai Ena Makkal vs Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 22 Sep 2014]
Education - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 341 - Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order 1964 - Reservation for SC/ST - Legality - Respondent no. 3 issued prospectus with respect to admission of 150 M.B.B.S seats for academic year 2014-15 - Appellant (petitioner/organization) challenged the classification made with reference to SC/ST category before HC - Single Judge by impugned order dismissed the writ petition - Hence, instant appeal - Appellant contended that definition mentioned in impugned proceedings was contrary to Presidential Order 1964 issued u/art. 341 of Constitution.

Held, issue involved is already dealt with by Court in the Order dt.27-9-2005 made in W.A.No.3472 of 2004 and W.P.No.12863 of 2005 and the Order dt.30-9-2005 made in W.A.Nos.3311 and 3386 of 2004. Court do not find any merit in instant appeal. Appeal dismissed.


M. Ramasamy vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government, Chennai and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 22 Sep 2014]

P. Solomon Francis and others vs Collector, Kancheepuram District and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 22 Sep 2014]
Land & Property - Administrative - Tamil Nadu Highways Act, ss. 15(2), 20(1) - Land acquisition - Disbursement of compensation - Petitioners (land owners) filed instant petition seeking to direct respondents to disburse the sum of Rs.56,06,401/- due and payable to them under an Award passed by respondent no. 1 along with interest and also to refer the award to the jurisdictional Civil Court as contemplated u/s. 20(1) of the Act for enhancement of compensation amount - Petitioners contended that land in question was private land and was classified in revenue records as Gramanatham and it was not a poromboke land.

Held, respondents issued a notice u/s. 15(2) of the Act by recognising the petitioners as owners of the property and in fact addressed the notice to petitioner no. 1 and his son. It is evident that the petitioners were recognised as owners of the lands in question inasmuch as the respondents have issued notices to them in the course of land acquisition proceedings. Respondents have come up with a plea that the lands in question are classified as government poromboke land and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation amount. If it is so, it is not known as to why the respondents could issued notices to the petitioners in the course of acquisition proceedings and also entertained the objections filed by them. Even in the award passed on 30-4-2013, the name of the deceased 'P' (father of petitioner no. 1) and the name of petitioner no. 1 is clearly indicated therein as owners of the land who are entitled for receipt of compensation amount. Therefore, at this stage, it is no longer open to the respondents to contend that the lands in question are clasified as government poromboke, the petitioners did not obtain patta in their favour and therefore, they are not entitled for receipt of compensation amount. The petitioners have produced a certificate dt.6-6-2013 from the Village Administrative Officer, to the effect that the lands in question are classified as gramanatham lands. When the land in question is classified as gramanatham, then the Govt. has no right over such land or the land do not vest with the Govt.. Rather, it is a private property which was in the occupation of the petitioners and when it is acquired by the respondents, they are bound to pay compensation to the petitioners. Lands in question are classified as gramanatham in the revenue records over which the Govt. cannot make any contra claim. This land is the private land of the petitioners and therefore they are entitled for payment of compensation as determined by the respondents themselves in the award passed in favour of the petitioners. Respondents are directed to disburse the compensation amount. Petition allowed.

Ratio - When classification of land is gramanatham it is a private land meant for the dwelling of such occupant. When a person puts up a construction over such land classified as gramanatham, the character of such property changes and it vests with such individual and he accrues a right to transfer such property to anybody he likes.




Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer