Chennai Court December 2012 Judgments

Mrs. Kamlesh Vs. Mrs. Brijj Mohini Sharma

Court: Chennai

1. The plaintiff / applicant has filed this application for grant of ad-interim injunction, restraining defendants, her men, agents, servants or any person claiming right through her from in any way interfering with the plaintiff s peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff / applicant has filed a suit for declaration, that the registered settlement deed dated 14.09.2009, registered as Doc.No.4489 of 2009 before SRO, Madras South as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff / applicant with consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the 1st respondent / defendant her men agents, servants from in any way interfering with the possession of the suit property. 3. It is submitted, that the property in dispute was purchased in the name of the plaintiff / applicant on 01.03.1996 and ever since the date of purchase of the suit property, it is in possession of the applicant / plaintiff and her third daughter Mrs.Manju Sh...

E.P. Jayaraman Vs. S.K. Mohanasundaram

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Cr)DCC169; 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)686

(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order made in C.M.P.No. 5833 of 2010 in S.T.C.No. 3127 of 2011, dated 21.04.2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi.) 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2011 made in C.M.P.No. 5833 of 2010 in S.T.C.No. 3127 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi condoning the delay of 94 days in filing the complaint. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that aggrieved against the order dated 21.04.2011, made in C.M.P.No. 5833 of 2010 in S.T.C.No. 3127 of 2011, the petitioner, who is the de-facto complainant, has come forward with this revision and contended that there is a mistake in mentioning the number of days delay i.e., instead of 94 days, the respondent has stated that there is only 64 days delay and it was not properly considered by the Court below. Further, he would only state that the resp...

Dr. C. Rajasekharan Vs. V. Sridharan and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(2)MLJ430; 2013(1)MWN(Civil)667

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C to set aside the decree and judgment in A.S.No.91 of 2006 dated 08.03.2010 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.93 of 1992 dated 28.02.2005 passed by the First Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry and allow the above appeal with costs.) 1. The second defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The first respondent V.Sridharan, as plaintiff, filed the original suit O.S.No.93 of 1992 against the second respondent Dr.I.C.Vyas, the appellant Dr.C.Rajasekharan and the third respondent G.Rathinam for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and for recovery of damages for use and occupation. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. On appeal preferred by the appellant herein/second defendant, the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. As against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court by which the decree passed by the trial Court stands confirm...

P. Venkatesan and Another Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police Economic ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(2)MLJ(Crl)104; 2013(1)LW(Crl)470

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 02.08.2006 passed in C.M.P. No. 1221 of 2006 in C.C. No. 29325 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai refusing to discharge the petitioners from the case in Crime No. 11 of 2004.) 1. The petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Case as against the order dated 02.08.2006 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai by which the petition filed by them for discharge was dismissed. 2. The petitioners were arrayed as A-3 and A-4 in C.C. No. 29325 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for the offence of buying the property from the main accused in C.C. No. 8 of 2000 thereby they have committed the offence punishable under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997. 3. The case of the prosecution is that one Mukundran, his wife Indira Mukundan and he...

S. Soundaram Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)446

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the Commissioner of Police to initiate appropriate action against the Public Prosecutor for dispensing with witnesses without any authority and causing miscarriage of justice by dispensing with the Eighty Three Witnesses and enabling the accused to go Scot free in C.C.No.10717/2001 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai made in his judgment dated 10.08.2006.) ORDER 1. The petitioner, who has been cited as one of the witnesses by the prosecution in C.C.No.10717 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, has come forward with this petition seeking to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10.08.2006 by acquitting the accused therein/respondents 3 and 4 herein and also to direct the Commissioner of Police to initiate appropriate action ag...

parties : V. Ravichandra Das and Another Vesus V. Mohan Govinda Das an ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005 made in O.S.No.30 of 2004, on the file of the First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.) R. KARUPPIAH, J. 1. The appeal is directed by the appellants/plaintiffs as against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005 made in O.S.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 2. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from alienating the plaintiffs' share in the suit property. The trial Court has dismissed the suit and aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 4. Briefly, the case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the first defendant are the brothers and along with their father, namely, K.G.Ve...

S.R. Ramakrishnan Vs. the Deputy Transport Commissioner Coimbatore and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013WLR59; 2013(1)CWC576

(PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorari as stated therein.) The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Sa.Mu.No.1859/A3/2012, dated 5.10.2012 and the records relating to the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.48943/A2/2011, dated 2.2.2012 and quash the same. 2.1. The brief facts, according to the petitioner, are as follows: One A.K.Palanisamy, maternal uncle of the petitioner, was owning Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No.TN-38-AZ-5000. On 3.1.2011, he executed a sale-cum-delivery receipt in respect of the above stated vehicle in favour of the petitioner. He also executed a Will in respect of other properties movable and immovable, of which we are not concerned for the present. 2.2. Based on the sale-cum-delivery receipt dated 3.1.2011, the petitioner approached Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhipuram Branch, Coimbatore and submitted a letter on 4.1.2011, und...

Navaneetham Ammal and Others Vs. Baby Ammal and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(2)MLJ456; 2013(1)MWN(Civil)651; 2013(2)LW446

(Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram dated 30.01.2010 made in A.S.No.35 of 2008 (CPT SC AS 78/2007) confirming the Judgment and Decree of the District Munsif, Tambaram dated 28.04.2006 made in O.S.No.40 of 2005.) 1. The defendants 1 to 5 in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiffs in the original suit are the respondents 1 and 2 in the second appeal. Defendants 6 to 8 in the original suit are the respondents 3 to 5 in the second appeal. 2. The first respondent Baby Ammal and the second respondent Devadass as plaintiffs, filed the suit O.S.No.40/2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram for the relief of partition claiming 1/9th share in the suit property to each one of them. The claim of the plaintiffs was based on their contention that the suit property was the absolute property of one Gopal to whom, Baby Ammal was legally wedded and h...

i. Dayalan Vs. the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Che ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the second and third respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Junior Training Officer in the Training Wing of the third respondent as per G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 19.07.2002 and also as per the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.33354 of 2004, 33746 of 2004, 10703 of 2010 and 12668 of 2010.) 1. The petitioner was an employee in the Tamil Nadu Steels Limited, Arakonam from 1991 to 1998. The company was owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the said company was closed. According to him, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.64, Industries(MIAI) Department, dated 19.07.2002, providing certain relief to the employees, who have lost their employment due to the closure of Tamil Nadu Steels Limited, Arakonam. Para 5(2) of the G.O.Ms.64, Industries(MIAI) Department, dated 19.07.2002, is extracted hereunder:- "The ex-employees of Tamil Nadu St...

M/S. Shri Mahalakshmi Metal and Scrap Processing Pvt Ltd. Vs. K. Anand ...

Court: Chennai

ORDER 1. This application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed to direct the third respondent / defendant to furnish security for the suit claim or in the alternative to attach schedule property before judgment. 2. The applicant is a company registered under Companies Act and is in business of finance. In the course of their business, the first respondent, the proprietor of M/s.Imagine Creations was advanced a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Fifty Lakhs only) for production of feature film. 3. Finance agreement was entered into at Chennai on 11.05.2009. The plaintiff / applicant agreed to invest Rs.2 Crore and the respondent / defendant had taken responsibility to complete the feature film. On completion of the film, the negative rights for the films were handed over to the plaintiff / applicant, who alone has authority to sell the distribution rights of the feature film. 4. Thereafter, on 24.05.2010,...