Chennai Court October 2016 Judgments
P.M. Vijayaseelan Vs. M. Barnaboss and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the fair and decreetal order passed by this Court on 07.06.2016 in O.A.No.296 of 2016 in C.S.No.222 of 2016.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed by this Court on 07.06.2016 in O.A.No.296 of 2016 in C.S.No.222 of 2016. 2. The facts arising out of this appeal are as under:- (i)The appellant herein is the applicant in O.A.No.296 of 2016 and the plaintiff in the suit in C.S.No.222 of 2016. The respondents herein are the respondents in O.A.No.296 of 2016 and the defendants in the suit in C.S.No.222 of 2016. Claiming to be the President of Advent Christian Conference of India, the appellant originally filed the suit in C.S.No.222 of 2016 seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the respondents 11 to 18 from interfering with his function as the President of the 19th respondent / Advent Christian Conference of India. Pending suit, a...
Tag this Judgment!Malairaj and Others Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Mudukul ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 26.03.2015, made in S.C.No.79 of 2013, by the Sessions cum Mahila Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.79 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions cum Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram. The trial Court framed as many as 4 charges against the accused as under: Charge No.AccusedOffence U/s.1A1 to A3U/s.498-A IPC2A1U/s.302 IPC3A2 and A3U/s.302 r/w 34 IPC4A1 to A3U/s.201 IPC By judgment dated 26.03.2015, the trial Court convicted all the three accused under all the charges and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for th...
Tag this Judgment!Thaicom Public Company Limited Vs. Raj Television Network Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to enforce the award dated 21.09.2015.) 1. This is a petition filed under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( in short the "1996 Act") to enforce the foreign award dated 21.09.2015 as a deemed decree. 1.1. The petitioner is the original claimant. The respondent herein was also the respondent in the arbitration proceedings. 1.2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be collectively referred to as parties. PREFATORY FACTS: 2. The brief facts, which are required to be noticed in order to adjudicate upon the instant petition, are as follows: The parties herein had entered into a transponder services agreement dated 10.09.2003 (hereafter referred to as "the agreement"). Under the agreement, the respondent was entitled to use C-Band Regional Beam Transponder, on Thaicom 3, for delivery of its television transmissions. 2.1. The tenure of t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramalingam and Another Vs. K. Subramani and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.06.2010 made in A.S.No.103 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2009 made in O.S.No.1367 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff, Salem.) 1. The plaintiffs have come forward with this second appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2010, made in A.S.No.103 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, reversing the judgement and decree dated 09.02.2009 made in O.S.No.1367 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem. 2. The suit has been laid for partition. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiffs is as follows: The suit property originally belonged to Karuman @ Anai Gounder and he was having two daughters one, Periyammal and the other, Chinnathayee. He died intestate and the suit property was inherited by his above s...
Tag this Judgment!A. Solai Thevar Vs. The Assistant Settlement Officer (South) Chepauk, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 31.05.2010 in Na.Ka.A1/299/2006 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 31.05.2010, in Na.Ka.A1/299/2006 passed by the first respondent. 2. Heard both sides. 3. In the impugned order, it is stated that against the impugned order, right of appeal before Land Tax Officer, Chennai, within a period of 30 days. In spite of that, the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2010 and the same is pending. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing of the appeal, the authority concerned shall consider without taking the delay into account and dispose of the appeal within a pe...
Tag this Judgment!J. Shahjahan Vs. M.H. Mohammed Mustafa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
G. Jayachandran, J. 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, rejecting the plaintiff's suit for bare injunction restraining the respondents from interfering the alleged peaceful possession of the suit schedule property without resorting to due process of law. 2. The short point involved in this case is that, the appellant herein claims to be in enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing Door No.741, later amended as Door No.741/A, Thiyagi Kumaran Market Corner, Rangey Gowder street, Coimbatore-1 and during the communal riot which took place in Coimbatore during the month of February 1998, the shop was burnt and ransacked. Taking advantage of that incident, the landlord who is the respondent herein trying to dispossess the plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff contested by the defendant on the grounds that, the plaintiff is not in occupation of Door No.741/A. It is accepted by the defendant that the plaintiff was a tenant under him fo...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyappan Vs. T. Baskar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is filed under Section 379 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam in S.T.C.No.197 of 2008, dated 23.9.2010.) In this revision, a complainant in a cheque bouncing case challenges the dismissal of his complaint and the discharge of the accused. 2. The revision petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as against the respondent alleging his commission of an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam after enquiry conducted under Sec.200 Cr.P.C. took cognizance thereon in S.T.C. No.197 of 2008 and issued summons to the respondent under Sec.204 Cr.P.C. 3. On 23.9.2010, the learned Magistrate passed the following impugned order, ultimately discharged the accused from the case. "Both parties called absent. NBW pending. No representation is also made. Steps not taken. The case is pending from 8 hearings being the case summary nature. Hence, the...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kumar Vs. The Secretary to Government, Electricity Department, Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay a sum of rs,15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) towards the compensation to the petitioner/Legal Representative who is the father of the deceased who died as a result of electrocution after coming into contact with a live electricity wire in the vacant plot opposite to his house while trying to save the cattle.) 1. The petitioner, who is the father of the deceased Victor, seeks a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation to him. 2. On 27.09.2010 at about 5.00 p.m., the petitioner's eldest son viz., Victor, who was then aged about 27 years, came into contact with a live wire that had snapped down in the vacant plot which is opposite to the petitioner's house, resulting in instantaneous electrocution death. 3. Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that due to the negli...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Perumal Vs. Deivanai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the order of return dated 12.09.2016 passed in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.670 of 2016 in O.S.No.2 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram and further to direct the trial Court to take the application on file and number the same.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order of return, dated 12.09.2016 passed in un-numbered I.A.SR.No.670 of 2016 in O.S.No.2 of 2013, on the file of the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram, wherein, it has been stated that: 12.09.2016 Return: ''Since, the Petitioner/second defendant stated in his written statement about non-seeking of relief against ''A'' schedule property in O.S.No.60 of 2010 by plaintiff, how can be file separate petition to be stated.'' 2. According to the Petitioner, earlier suit has been filed for permanent injunction in O.S.No.60 of 2010, on the file of t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Basheria and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3151 of 2007, the writ petitioners have come up with this appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Appeal, are, as under: 2.1. The first appellant viz. S. Basheria is the wife of one T.C.A.Mohamed Yusuff, the 3rd respondent herein. The 2nd and 3rd appellants are her daughters and the 4th appellant is her son. The 1st appellant got married with the 3rd respondent herein, a Beef Merchant, on 20.08.1987 as per Islamic customary rites and practise and the marriage was duly recorded in the Nikkah Register of Padi Jumma Masjid. During the initial stage of her married life, she was residing with the 3rd respondent at his native place and subsequently, she shifted her matrimonial residence to Mannurpet, Chennai. 2.2. According to the 1st appellant, the 3rd respondent did not have any regular income and took to drinking. Though the father of the 1st appellant gave a sum ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »