Chennai Court October 2016 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.
Mohamed Jamaludin Vs. State Bank of Travancore Rep. by Branch Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents herein, their subordinates, men and agents, from forcibly evicting the petitioner from the property bearing Door No.8/88B, Chidambarnathan Street, C.Pallavaram, Chennai - 600 043, without affording sufficient time of atleast 3 months to vacate the property as requested through the representation submitted by the petitioner on 15.10.2016.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. laiming himself to be a tenant under the 2nd respondent from 1989 and continues to be in occupation for over 27 years and contending inter alia that he is aged about 61 years, and taking care of his three daughters and parents-in-law, sought to be forcibly evicted by the State Bank of Travancore, represented by the Branch Manager, authorised officer, Besant Nagar Branch, Chennai, the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their subord...
Neethi Match Factory, Represented by its Prop.Mr.Martin Charles, Tirun ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: The Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 15.07.2016 made in W.P.(MD) Nos.12414 and 12415 of 2016.) Common Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. By consent, both Writ Appeals are taken up for final disposal. The writ petitioner is the appellant in both appeals. The petitioner is proprietorship concern. It is also registered under the Tamilnadu VAT Act 2006 and Central Sales TAX Act, 1956(TNVAT and CST). The petitioner claims that it is a manufacturer and dealer in Venneers and the TIN number is 336765942039. It was obtained by his father in his name and his father was running the business and some time thereafter, he left separtely. The petitioner has also been furnished new Tin No.33446340691 on 09.10.2015 and as on today carrying on the business. The petitioner would state that though new Tin number was obtained in his name, the business was carried on by his father. Therefore, he was not aware of the affairs relating to the...
G. Kothandaraman Vs. D. Kesavan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.147 of 2014 in A.S.No.113 of 2012, dated 22.4.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.147 of 2014 in A.S.No.113 of 2012, dated 22.4.2016, on the file of Sub-Court, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2. According to the Petitioner, that the revision petitioner as plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.129 of 2009 for declaration and for mandatory injunction in respect of the second schedule of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner herein has filed an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and the said application was allowed and the Commissioner has submitted his report along with sketch before the trial Court. The respondent has objected for the measurem...
G. Saraswathi and Another Vs. V. Venkatavaradhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 05.03.2016 passed in I.A.No.1575 of 2016 in O.S.No.9094 of 2010 on the file of VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Challenging the order passed in the application in I.A.No.1575 of 2016 in O.S.No.9094 of 2010 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiffs have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.9094 of 2010 for Partition, Permanent Injunction and Mesne Profits. The defendant filed his written statement and is contesting the suit. When the suit was taken up for trial, after completion of the plaintiffs' side evidence, D.W.1 was examined and was cross-examined by the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiffs. When the suit was posted for further evidence on the side of the defendant, the defendant took out an application in I.A.No.1575 of 2016 to decide the preliminary ob...
Deepa Prasad and Others Vs. Hafsa Zainuddin and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 against the fair and decreetal order dated 31.08.2015 made in MP Nos.550, 551, 552, 554, 555, 557, 558, 559, 561, 562, 563, 561, 565 of 2015 in RCA No.547, 548, 549, 551, 552, 554, 555, 556, 558, 559, 560, 561 and 562 of 2014 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) Common Order: 1. Since the issues involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, all the applications, filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, were disposed of by common order, all the above Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are the landlords. The landlords filed Rent Control Original Petitions for eviction on the ground of wilful default and denial of title. The tenants filed their counter in the Rent Control Original Petitions and contested th...
Rakkiappa Gounder and Another Vs. A. Karthikeyan and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.02.2016 made in O.S.No.301 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District -cum-Sessions Court, Tiruppur.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J 1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.02.2016 made in O.S.No.301 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruppur granting preliminary decree as prayed for in the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is as follows : (i) The total extent in S.F.No.47 of Thekkalur village is 10.82 acres and S.F.No.49 is 7.90 acres. Both SF Numbers were subdivided as S.F.No.47/1 and 47/2 and S.F.No.49/1 to 49/5. Originally one Muthusamy Gounder, Kaliappa Gounder and Palanisamy acquired the property by virtue of various sale deeds in 1956 and 1960. Their legal heirs conveyed their shares in the said properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff entered into a Deed of Exchange on 14.05.2007 with R...
M/s.General Trading Company rep. by its Proprietor M.N. Ammeen Vs. The ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari to call for the connected copies of the first respondent in his orders dated 30.7.2016 made respectively in TIN 33501884575/2009-10, TIN 33501884575/2010-11, TIN 33501884575/ 2011-12, TIN 33501884575/2012-13, TIN 33501884575/2013-14 and TIN 33501884575/2014-15 and quash the same.) Common Order 1. Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal. 2. The petitioner is a trader in acids and chemicals and registered as a dealer on the file of the first respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders of assessment passed by the first respondent under the provisions of the said Act for the years 2009-10 to 2014-15. 3. The learned counsel has prefaced his submissions by contending th...
K. Selvaraj Vs. The Ponds (India) Limited Leather Products Division Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Writ appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order of this Court made in W.P. No.8959 of 1998 dated 30.10.2006.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Writ appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.8959/1998 dated 30.10.2006, by which, the writ court, has declined to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pondicherry, made in I.A.No.21 of 1995 in I.D.No.55 of 1993 dated 19.1.1998 and consequently, declined to issue directions to the Labour Court, Pondicherry, which disposed of the industrial dispute. 2. Facts leading to the appeal are that on 19.4.1984, the appellant joined Ponds (India) Ltd, Leather Products Division, Mettupalayam, Pondicherry - 8. On 1.7.1988 and his services were regularised. By order dated 14.5.1993, he was terminated from service, on the basis of some charges and irregularities. The appellant raised a dispute, which culminated in I.D.No.55/1993 on the file of the Presiding O...
The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 30.04.2015 made in E.P.No.80 of 2011 in L.A.O.P.No.10/92 on the file of 1st Additional Sub Court, Erode.) 1. Challenging the order passed in E.P.No.80 of 2011 in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1992 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Erode, the Requisition Body has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. Heard Mr.S.T.S.Murthy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner, Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 and Mr.T.Jayaramaraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 9th respondent. 3. Pursuant to the Award passed in the Land Acquisition Original Petition in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1992 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Erode, the claimants have filed the Execution Petition in E.P No.80 of 2011. The Executing Court allowed the Execution Petition. 4. Earlier, the Referring Officer filed a Civil R...
Ramanathan and Another Vs. Rengasamy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram to expedite the hearing in A.S.No.19 of 2015 and to dispose of the same within the time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram to expedite the hearing in A.S.No.19 of 2015 and to dispose of the same within the time frame fixed by this Court. 2. According to the revision Petitioners, the respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2009, before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai, seeking permanent injunction not to disturb the revision petitioners from doing the Thiruppani Work and by judgement and decree, dated 31.3.2015, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.19 of 2015 before the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram. In the aforesaid appeal suit, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »