Chennai Court December 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Navamani Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.142 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Trichy. By judgment dated 11.11.2010, the trial Court has convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Jenci Beula. She was the wife of the accused. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is a neighbour. The marriage between them was solemnized on 24.05.2002. After some time of the marriage, P.W.1 gave a landed property to the accused for the purpose of constructing a house. When P.W.1, suggested to the accused to raise housing loan for the purpose of constructing the house, the accused was not agreeable for the same. The accused, ther...
Krishnammal and anr. Vs. Paramasivan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
This second appeal is focussed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2008 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2007 passed in O.S.No.194 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Shencottah. 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, the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs to the effect that the defendants should remove the encroachment made in the common pathway on the main ground that the pathway found described in the schedule of the plaint is the one meant for the use of both parties; however, the defendants high-handedly started putting up the staircase encroaching a portion of the common pathway; whereupon the plaintiffs were con...
V.Bhaskaran Vs. the Special Director of Enforcement and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
The appellant was issued with an 'opportunity notice' contemplated under Section 61(2)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA) by the third respondent, alleging that he contravened the provisions of FERA while purchasing a Toyoto Lexus car from London under a fictitious transaction, making use of the name of one Dr.S.Balakrishnan, No.3, Shelley Avenue, Manor Park, London-E126, UK, employed as an anesthetist in the National Health Service of England and said to be a friend of the father-in-law of the appellant. It was also alleged that the vehicle was illegally imported to India, by offering under-valuation of the car for the purposes of payment of import duty. 2. While it is the allegation of the respondents/Department that it is an illegal purchase made by the appellant, it is the case of the appellant that the said car was gifted to him on the occasion of his marriage by the said Dr.S.Balakrishnan, who is the friend of his father-in-law. It ...
New Bridge Holdings B.V. Vs. Ttk-lig Limited and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
The petitioner, New Bridge Holdings B.V., through its Authorised Signatory seeks for a direction to punish the respondents for their act of disobeying and defying the order dated 1.6.2011 made in C.A.No.113 of 2011 in C.P.No.41 of 2011 on the file of Company Law Board, Chennai Bench, Chennai. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has averred as follows. The first respondent, M/s TTK-LIG Limited is a joint venture company incorporated in 1963 with the petitioner/its parent company. The petitioner and TTK group hold 49.87 per cent shares each and the balance percentage is held by 40 individuals. The first respondent, inter alia, manufactures contraceptives including condoms under the trademarks “Durex” and “Kohinoor”. The group/parent company of the petitioner had provided the technology, machinery, processes, etc., in 1963 and continue to provide the same to the first respondent. The group company had also permitted the use of its world renowned trademark...
Justice S. Jagadeesan, Former Judge High Court of Madras Vs. the Gener ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
(This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 22.11.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for complainants side and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order.) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The complainant filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986, claiming direction for reimbursement of Rs.29,682/- being the loss of sitting fees and Air fare wrongfully forfeited by the opposite parties and Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and humiliation suffered by the complainant due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and for costs. 2. The Gist of the complaint in brief is as follows :- The complainant is a retired High Court Judge and former Chairman of Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India purchased a ticket through his travel agency for his journey by air from Chennai to Coimbatore on 28.04.2...
Bank of Baroda, Rep. by Its Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. K.T. Ra ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 23.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming for direction to pay Rs.1,98,000/- towards difference in the exchange rate with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, frustration and inconvenience suffered by him and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the legal expenses. 3. The complainant is the power of attorney holder of Mr.K.R.Sudhakar and he is the son of the K.T.Ramakrishnan, the complainant/respondent herein. The complainant has deposited one cheque bearing No.88162924631177 (Atlanta Cheque) for the value of USD 44,000/- in NRE Account No.27480100002462 with Bank of Baroda, Thillai Nagar Branch, Trichy-18 on...
Baskar Rao Vs. M/S.Rr Sudha Agencies (Pvt.)ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decreetal order dated 4.7.2011 passed in I.A.No.277 of 2011 in O.S.No.7345 of 2006 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.7345 of 2006 for recovery of money outstanding. The admitted case is that the suit summons were served on the third defendant/revision petitioner. However, according to the third defendant/revision petitioner, he resigned from the company on 23.2.2005. Therefore, he handed over the suit summons to the other defendants who undertook to defend the suit. The revision petitioner was shocked to receive notice in the execution proceedings on 10.11.2010 and realised that an ex parte decree was passed against him. Thereafter, he filed application I.A.No.277 of 2011 on 7.12.2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1239 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17.7.2007 passed in O.S.No.7345 of 2006. 3. T...
A.Perumalsamy and ors. Vs. A.Anand and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
The Judgment and decree dated 25.10.2006 passed in Original Suit No.70 of 1996 by the District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.70 of 1996 on the file of the Court below praying to declare that they are the cultivating tenants of the suit property and also to pass a decree of recovery of possession, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. 3. In Original Suit No.70 of 1996 on the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side the Court below has framed necessary issues and one of the issues is as to whether the trial Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the bar created under section 16-A of the Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. 4. On the basis of the divergent evidence adduced on either side, the Court below has dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that ...
Kaleeswaran Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.338 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. The Trial Court has convicted him under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 449 of I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court by judgment dated 30.11.2010, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Vinoth Kumar. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 are the father, brother and mother respectively of the deceased. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.1. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and the deceased were all residing in their own house ...
Shantha and ors. Vs. V.Murali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
One Shantha, wife of late Venkatarama Naidu; one Sasikala, wife of Thiru Venkatesan and daughter of late Venkatarama Naidu; and one Rajalakshmi, wife of Thiru Srinivasan and daughter of late Venkatarama Naidu have filed CRP No.3067 of 2007 challenging the order dated 30.7.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Trust O.P.No.1 of 2003. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tiruvannamalai has filed CRP No.1840 of 2008 challenging the very same order dated 30.7.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Trust O.P.No.1 of 2003. 3. The relief sought for in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same. Hence, by consent, both the Civil Revision Petitions are taken up for disposal together. 4. Thiru V.Murali and Thiru V.Narasimhan, the respondents 1 and 2 in CRP No.3067 of 2007 and respondents 2 and 3 in CRP No.1840 of 2008 are the sons of Tmt.Shantha, the first revision petitioner in CRP No.3067 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »