Chennai Court November 2011 Judgments
Pichai Vs. M.Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. A.S.No.1135 of 1994 is focussed by the 6th defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1993 made in O.S.No.998 of 1989 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.2. A.S.No.204 of 1996 is directed by the first defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1993 made in O.S.No.998 of 1989 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.3. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.4. Shorn and bereft of details, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two Appeal Suits which emerged out of one and the same judgment dated 21.09.1993 in O.S.No.998 of 1989 passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, would run thus: The plaintiff - Lakshmi, filed the suit for partition claiming 1/4th share in the suit A and B scheduled properties.5. The first defendant filed the written statement r...
Tag this Judgment!AuspIn Anpuraj Baylis Vs. the Chief Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. The two petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents State Bank of India to repay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs maintained in various account numbers together with interest.2. Notice of motion was ordered in the writ petition. On notice from this court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 11.11.2011. It was claimed that the petitioners' father was doing business of discounting of cheque with one Paulraj. The said Paulraj was paid Rs.8/- per thousand provided the cheque amount was realized in three days. The said Paulraj was prosecuted by the C.B.I and was convicted by the C.B.I Court by an order dated 3.4.1998. Subsequently, he died. The petitioners' father is also no more. Therefore, in the absence of details, only the civil court is competent to go into the question. Even during the life time of the petitioners' father, no civil suit is filed against the bank. Since the amount was kept on the basis of joint business and n...
Tag this Judgment!K.Alagar Vs. K.Chithiraiselvam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. This Appeal Suit is focussed by the original 3rd defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2010, passed in O.S.No.74 of 2008 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Madurai.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Appeal would run thus: The respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:(a) By passing a preliminary decree for partition in the undivided 1/2 share of Late. Karuppannan @ Pambaiyan in the 'A' schedule hereunder into sixteen equal shares by metes and bounds and allot 4/16th share to the plaintiffs with separate possession.(b) By passing a preliminary decree for partition and thereby directing the division of properties described in the 'B' schedule hereunder into eight equal shares by metes and bounds and allo...
Tag this Judgment!Annadurai and ors. Vs. R.Manohar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendants 3 to 5 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009, passed in A.S.No.202 of 2007 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor in reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006, passed in O.S.No.426 of 2004 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Valliyoor.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A recapitulation and re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:The plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction in respect of a landed immovable property found described in the schedule of the plaint on the ground that the defendants without any manner of right were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff, who purchased it under two sale deeds.4. D1 and D2 remained exparte before the Courts below. The defendan...
Tag this Judgment!J.Prahalathan and ors. Vs. Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original plaintiffs animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009, passed in A.S.No.67 of 2007 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2006, passed in O.S.No.258 of 2002 by the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Shorn and bereft of unnecessary details, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the Second Appeal would run thus: The plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein filed the suit in O.S.No.258 of 2002, seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant and their officials and their men from constructing any public convenience in the suit tank by converting the classification or in any way interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the same for irrigation a...
Tag this Judgment!Saravanan Vs. Subramaniya Mudaliyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2011 made in A.S.No.33 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2010 made in O.S.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A recapitulation and a re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit as against his erstwhile tenant for eviction and for arrears of rent.4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement setting out various pleas.5. Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues.6. During trial, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and no documentary evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Veluchamy Vs. Venkadasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2009 made in A.S.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2007 made in O.S.No.84 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Broadly, but briefly, narratively, but precisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint on the ground that he acquired title over it by virtue of various sale deeds.4. However, the defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and that h...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Arasan Textile Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. Second Appellate Committee.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. These two Writ Petitions arise out of identical issue. In the first Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7922 of 2005, the petitioner is one M/s.Arasan Textile Mills (P) Limited, represented by its Director. In that Writ Petition, the challenge is to an order dated 14.06.2005 issued by the Second Appellate Committee constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, in Order No.14/273/2005/E.111/1222, dated 14.06.2005. By the impugned order, the first respondent Appellate Committee rejected the petitioner's appeal. In the order, it is stated that the petitioner had already filed W.P.No.2596 of 2005 before this Court and this Court, vide its order dated 30.03.2005, passed an order that until the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Committee, the bank guarantee of the petitioner should not be forfeited. Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed. It is now claimed that the said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on 10.09.2008, subsequent to the ord...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Sri Lakshmi Narayana Packaging Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Branch Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. The petitioner-company borrowed a loan from the respondents Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited [for short TIIC Limited], which is a State Financial Corporation [for short SFC] under the State Financial Corporation Act. After borrowing loan, there was a delay in repayment and adherence to the schedule for repayment. It also transpires that at the time of borrowing the loan, the petitioner-company have hypothecated their machineries including 125 KVA generator with TIIC as a collateral security. However, after taking the loan, which was originally sanctioned at Rs.11,00,000/- on 06.10.1995 and after availing the loan of Rs.10,67,000/-, the partners of the petitioner- company have sold the security without the knowledge and consent of the respondents TIIC. It was thereafter a criminal complaint was also given against the partners. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner-company have come forward to challenge a notice issued by TIIC dated 29.04.2004. In that notice, they...
Tag this Judgment!R.Lakshmi Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. The petitioner is the mother of one R.Divyabarathi, aged 16 years. According to her, she was found missing from 31.10.2011 onwards. In this regard, she has given a complaint to the second respondent also. Since R.Divyabarathi was not secured by the second respondent, the petitioner has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2. On 10.11.2011, when the Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for hearing, the second respondent produced the detenu, R.Divyabarathi, before this Court. On enquiry, she had stated that she was not willing to go with her mother. Therefore, this Court directed her to be kept in the Child Welfare Committee (Shakthi Vidiyal), Madurai - 3 with a further direction to give necessary counselling suitable to the minor detenu through expert counsellors. She was directed to be produced before this Court on 14.11.2011. On 14.11.2011 when she was produced before this Court, she again expressed that she was not willing to go with her parents. Therefore, she was again...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »