Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai madurai Page 1 of about 39 results (0.040 seconds)

Mar 30 2016 (HC)

R. Janakiraman Vs. S. Uma Rani and Others

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... technicality and waste of judicial time to insist on examination of an attesting witness, before a will could be used as evidence. phipson on evidence 12th edition (1976) explains the rationale behind examining an attesting witness as that he is the witness appointed or agreed upon by the parties to speak to the circumstances of its execution, "an agreement which may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2016 (HC)

Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... 'ble supreme court considered the question of extension of limitation, in matters pertaining to land acquisition proceedings. the hon'ble apex court explained the meaning of the word limitation scope rationale and the object in the enactments. while explaining limitation and exercise of power of condonation by courts, at paragraph 14, the hon'ble supreme court held as follows:- 14.it ..... diligence. again, while referring to statutes of limitation, the supreme court described them as statutes of peace. paragraphs 27 to 29 would be relevant for the purpose of understanding the rationale behind fixing time limit, under the statutes and also as to how the courts have to exercise their jurisdiction of condonation of delay. though the hon'ble apex court referred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2012 (HC)

T. Soundarajan Vs. Valiyammal

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... shows that a discretion has been vested in the civil court to get an scientific investigation conducted if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice. the basic rationale of the provision is that if the opinion of the scientific investigation is going to help in extracting the truth and determining the controversy raised in the dispute before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2016 (HC)

S. Ganapathy Vs. N. Senthilvel

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... principles of criminal procedure that form the underlying legal context, such as the right of the accused to a fair trial, and the double presumption of innocence. this is the rationale for the class of persons who are competent to maintain an appeal has been restricted to victims, and their guardians and legal heirs. this aim of this limitation is to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 2012 (HC)

Vanitha Vs. the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services D ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... employment news bulletins and consider all the candidates who have applied. this view was taken to afford equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates in the matter of employment. the rationale behind such direction is also consistent with the sound public policy that wider the opportunity of the notice of vacancy by wider publication in the newspapers, radio, television and employment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 2015 (HC)

Jeyanthi Vs. Jeyapaul

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... of economic resources to which the petitioner is entitled to, may amount to domestic violence, has given a finding that the petitioner can separately file a petition for maintenance. the rationale behind this decision is certainly incorrect. but the question to be seen is whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance under the context, conduct and the circumstances alleged. 21. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2016 (HC)

State of Tamil Nadu, by Principal Secretary, Micro, Small and Medium E ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... by informing that those appointed under compassionate grounds can be inserted in between those appointed through tnpsc by maintaining inter se seniority. when such is the purpose we see no rationale in holding the rule applicable to those appointed subsequently but denying the same to those appointed before 14.09.1984. seniority opens up avenues of promotion and once settled, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2017 (HC)

D. Thangapandi and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Pri ...

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 allot 51 fruit shops to the members of the petitioner's society 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.16217 of 2016 : writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to conduct public auction for the allotment of 240 fruit shops at the newly constructed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 2016 (HC)

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Bye-Pass Road, Tirunelveli V ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

(prayer: appeal suit filed under section 54 of land acquisition act, praying to set aside the decree passed in l.a.o.p. no.72 of 1990 dated 22.03.2004 on the file of the land acquisition tribunal and principal sub court, tirunelveli.) 1. this appeal has been preferred by the government aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation by the land acquisition tribunal-cum-principal sub court, tirunelveli, in laop no.72 of 1990, dated 22.03.2004. 2. the following are the brief facts: 2.1. the land belonging to the respondents was located in two survey numbers, namely, survey no.4/1b and 4/2b in sivanadiyarkulam in palayamkottai taluk within the sub registration district of melapalayam. it is not in dispute that the total area of the land is 1.27.0 hectares equivalent to approximately 3 acres 16 cents. the land was acquired from the respondents by issuing a notification under section 4(1) of the act, dated 25.04.1988. the acquisition is for the purpose of laying bye-pass road. 2.2. the land acquisition officer passed an award dated 29.09.1989 in award no.2/89 and fixed the compensation at rs.600/- per cent and rs.60,000/- per acre. however, the land owners claimed compensation at the rate of rs.2,500/- per cent and rs.2,50,000/- per acre. the land acquisition tribunal has enhanced the compensation from rs.600/- to rs.2,500/- per cent on the basis of sale deeds and other documents. aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the government. 3. the learned additional .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2015 (HC)

Kathiresan Vs. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Dist ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

(prayer: appeal filed under section 374 of the code of criminal procedure against the conviction and sentence passed by the sessions judge, magalir neethimandram, tirunelveli, in s.c.no.85 of 2006 dated 26.02.2007.) 1. this is a case of child rape. the appellant/accused is the sole accused in s.c.no.85 of 2006 on the file of the learned sessions judge, magalir neethimandram, tirunelveli. the trial court framed two charges against the accused. he stood charged for offences under sections 366 and 376(1) of ipc. by judgment dated 26.02.2007, the learned sessions judge, convicted the appellant/accused under sections 366 and 376(1) of ipc and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under section 366 of ipc and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under section 376(1) of ipc. challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused is now before this court with this criminal appeal. 2. the case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- the victim of the alleged rape in this case is one 'x' [the name of the victim is consciously avoided]. at the time of occurrence, x was studying vi standard in a local school. thus, she was hardly aged 11 years. p.w.1 is the father and p.w.3 is the mother of x. they were residing in a village in tenkasi .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //