Chennai Court July 2012 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.
PushpalathA. Vs. Devaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Prayer This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 12.04.2006 made in CMA.No.13/2005 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, confirming the order dated 3.10.2005 made in IA.No.376/2003 in OS.No.235/1999 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 12.04.2006 made in CMA.No.13/2005 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, confirming the order dated 3.10.2005 made in IA.No.376/2003 in OS.No.235/1999 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.2. The 1st Respondent herein as Plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.235/1999 against Thangamma Nadachi, the grand mother of the Revision Petitioner herein for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 15.7.1999. It is stated that on the first date of hearing i.e. on 22.1.1999 one Selvamani, Advocate had entered appearance and filed a Written Statement conceding to pass a decree in favour of the 1st Respondent/ ...
Michael IrwIn Francis. Vs. Trevor Chatlier.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.11.2011 made in I.A.No.213 of 2011 in O.S.No.26 of 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, The Nilgris at Udhagamandalam and issue suitable direction by ordering the said Application in I.A.No.213 of 2011 as prayed for.O R D E R1. Challenging the order dated 04.11.2011 made in I.A.No.213 of 2011 in O.S.No.26 of 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, The Nilgris at Udhagamandalam, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.2. The Revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2010 for (a) possession of the premises described in the Schedule, (b) payment of Rs.1,08,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of suit till payment and (c) payment of future damages at the rate of Rs.150/- per day from the date of suit till date of delivery of possession.3. The petitioner/def...
Chinnappan. Vs. Ponnagounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 7.3.2012 passed by the District Munsif, Mettur, in I.A.No.874 of 2010 in O.S.No.238 of 2010.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the dated 7.3.2012 passed by the District Munsif, Mettur, in I.A.No.874 of 2010 in O.S.No.238 of 2010, this civil revision petition is filed.2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:(i) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that his client is the 5th petitioner/5th plaintiff in the final decree application for getting the property divided into two equal shares, as per the preliminary decree. Whereas, the trial Curt appointed an Advocate Commissioner and passed the following order:"In the result Thiru M.Kumarasamy Advocate Mettur is appointed as commissioner. The Commissioner is directed to visit the suit property and identify the portio...
C.Nesamani. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment in the pathway in S.No.279/5, Thiruvithancode Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI,J)1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment in the pathway in S.No.279/5, Thiruvithancode Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.2. Petitioner is a resident in Ward No.7, Mulagumood Town Panchayat. According to the Petitioner, his access to the Highway is through S.No.279/5, Thiruvithancode Village, Kalkulam Taluk. Further case of the Petitioner is that the said Survey No.279/5 is a poramboke land and the width of the pathway therein is 17 feet and its length is 60 feet. According to the Petitioner, Mulagumood Town Panchayat has provided a six feet concrete pathway throug...
Ms.Seasons Exports. Vs. Samhit Exports and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Prayer.:- Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.2005 made in C.C.No.8205 of 2000 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.J U D G M E N T1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of acquittal made in C.C.No.8205 of 2000 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2. The appellant as a complainant preferred a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stating that it is carrying on business of supplying fabrics and it supplied fabric to the value of Rs.4,29,658/- as per the instruction of the third accused / third respondent under Ex.P2-Invoice. The third respondent transferred the goods to the first accused / first respondent without the knowledge of the complainant. The third accused asked the complainant to change the invoice in the name of the first accused. A sum of Rs.91,800/- alone was paid by the second accused / second respondent. The complainant rec...
K.Balakrishnan. Vs. K.Ruthrappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order dated 02.01.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, The Nilgiris, Ootacamund in I.A.No.195 of 2011 in A.S.No.7 of 2011.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 02.01.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, The Nilgiris, Ootacamund in I.A.No.195 of 2011 in A.S.No.7 of 2011, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:(i) The respondents 2 to 4/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.68 of 2004 seeking the following reliefs:To pass a judgment and decreea) for possession of the lands morefully described in the schedule below.b) payment of Rs.89,600/- only with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of suit till payment.c) payment of future damages at the rate of Rs.100/- per day from the date of suit till the date of delivery of (end of the page No.5 in original) ...
S.Raja Mohamed. Vs. Chief Executive Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 04.04.2012 for renewal the license in the name of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015 in respect of Shop No.Au-19, Periyar Vegetable Market, Koyambedu, Chennai-92.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 04.04.2012 for renewal the license in the name of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015 in respect of Shop No.Au-19, Periyar Vegetable Market, Koyambedu, Chennai-92.2. Mr.P.Tamilmani, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Counsel for the respondents states that the second respondent will consider the representation of the petitioner on its own merits ...
State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Limited. Vs. a Saravana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order dated made in M.C.O.P. No.7 of 2005 dated 18.06.2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Principal District Judge], Thoothukudi.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.19,73,000/- awarded to the Claimants for the death of deceased Arumugam in the road traffic accident on 18.04.2004, Appellant State Express Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal both on liability and also on quantum.2. Brief facts are that on 18.04.2004 - 12.30 noon, deceased Arumugam was going in his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-69 E 7500 from south to north in Ettayapuram to Tuticorin road on the north of Navabharath Lorry Shed. At that time the Appellant Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-01 N 6378 coming from north to south i.e. Ettayapuram-Tuticorin road driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and without observing traffic ru...
S.Nagarajan. Vs. S.P.Thirumalaisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.02.2011 passed in I.A.No.64 of 2009 in unnumbered Pauper Appeal No.......of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 7.02.2011 passed in I.A.No.64 of 2009 in unnumbered Pauper Appeal No.......of 2009, by the on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. A thumbnail sketch of the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision, would run thus:The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of money based on a pro note. After contest the suit was decreed, as against which the defendant who is the revision petitioner herein, preferred appeal informa pauperis. The appellate Court after hearing both sides, rejected the prayer of the defendant to file the appeal informa pauperis.4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfie...
R.Balu. Vs. Arulmighu Sakthi Vinayagar Temple
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order made in I.A.No.40 of 2009 in A.S.No.47 of 2005, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode, dated 29.01.2009.O R D E R1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order made in I.A.No.40 of 2009 in A.S.No.47 of 2005, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Erode, wherein and whereby, the application filed by the petitioner, seeking for rejection of Commissioner's Report and plan submitted by him, was dismissed, by an order dated 29.01.2009.2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent-temple in O.S.No.503 of 2002, on the file of District Munsif Court, Erode, seeking for declaration of the title to the suit property and for recovery of possession. The said suit was contested by the petitioner herein, as the defendant and the trial Court, after considering various aspects of the matter, dismissed the suit, by a judgment and decree dated 28.01.2004. A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »