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.
J. John Rich Premkumar Vs. Usha Devi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in unnumbered I.A in A.S.SR.No.2689 of 2014, dated 6.7.2016, on the file of the District Court,Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in unnumbered I.A in A.S.SR.No.2689 of 2014, dated 6.7.2016, on the file of the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2. According to the Petitioner, that the revision petitioner is the appellant in the appeal filed before the District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil and was assigned asA.S.SR.No.2689 of 2014.The Petitioner herein filed Appeal Suit against the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.35 of 2007, on the file of Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. The Petitioner has also filed an application under Section 149 of C.P.C to condone the delay of 183 days in repre...
Sekar Veresus Ganesan Represented by his Power Agent, Thiruvengadam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.24 of 2010 dated 27.08.2010 on the file of the Court of Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.237 of 2004 dated 20.04.2009 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Sirkali.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.24 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.237 of 2004 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Sirkali. 2. The suit is for Permanent Injunction. 3. The plaint averments are briefly stated as follows: The suit "A" schedule property is an old house in survey No.65/5B and the suit "B" schedule property is a shop in the same survey number, which were purchased by the plaintiff's maternal grandmoth...
The General Manager, Union of India, Southern Railway, Headquarters Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Ceriorari, to call for the records in O.A.No.666 of 2013 and quash the order, dated 24.03.2016.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order, made in O.A.No.666 of 2013, dated 24.03.2016, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, directing the petitioners herein, to re-consider the matter, by subjecting the 2nd respondent, to be examined by a team of three doctors, within a time frame, for selection to the post of Trackman. 2. Assailing the correctness of the order made in O.A.No.666 of 2013, dated 24.03.2016, Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench, has erred in directing the petitioners to re-consider the matter, by subjecting the 2nd respondent, for third medical examination, by a team of three doctors, when he had already been found as medically unfit, by the competent Rai...
M. Girija Vs. Kalisuresh
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court at Thoothukudi and to transfer the same to the file of the Additional Sub Court at Tirunelveli and tried along with H.M.O.P.No.12 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sub Court at Tirunelveli.) 1. Short facts as narrated by the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.11.2011 at Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, as per the Hindu rites and customs. After two months, the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was strained and they were separated. Subsequently, the petitioner/wife filed HMOP.No.12 of 2015, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. The said case was adjourned for enquiry and the respondent also filed the counter affi...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. Archana and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayers: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 1 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Thoothukudi. Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C., in C.M.A. (MD)No.759 of 2005, against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Thoothukudi.) Common Judgment V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Tuticorin. 2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed against the common Judgment and Decree, dated 29.09.2003, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Prin...
J. Palanivel Vs. The State rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Mothik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 06.03.2015 in C.C.No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri.) 1. The Appellant/Defacto Complainant (P.W.1) has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 06.03.2015 in C.C.No.18 of 2014 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.18 of 2014 on 06.03.2015, at paragraph No.10, had, inter alia, observed that '... when no trust can be placed on the Prosecution evidence and when Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the Court cannot fix criminal liability on the Accused' and resultantly, found the Accused (R1 and R2/A1 and A2) not guilty in respect of the offences under Section 294(b), 324 I.P.C. and acquitted them of all the charges under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 3. Ch...
K.K. Varathan Vs. Dhanalakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition for Letters of Administration annexed with Will under Section 232 and 276 of Indian Succession Act under Order XXV Rule 5 of O.S.Rules praying that Letter of Administration with the Will annexed may be granted to the petitioner as one of the legatees under the Will of the said deceased having effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu.) 1. The Testamentary Original Suit is filed by the plaintiff for issuance of Letters of Administration for the Will and testament of deceased K.S.Kothandaraman, executed on 23.12.1985. The testator died on 22.11.1992 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 as legal heirs. The seventh defendant is the daughter-in-law of the testator, being the wife of one of the sons whose whereabout not known, namely, K.Narasimhan. The testator was possessed of immovable property consisting of house and ground within the limits of Chennai. It is stated that the movable assets had already been settled by the testator himself. So far as the prop...
Sanjeevi and Others Vs. Kanthiri
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the order passed in E.P.No.347 of 2007 in O.S.No.1205 of 2004, dated 28.7.2016, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.) 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Civil Revision Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs....
The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. Vs. Dr. N. Varadarajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for a judgment and decree against the defendants for the following: a) directing the defendants to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.30,00,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of payment / recovery in full; b) the costs of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.30,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.30,00,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of payment / recovery in full, from the defendants. 2. The plaintiff is a Banking company incorporated under the Laws of Netherlands. The defendants are the joint owners of the property of an extent of 5 grounds and 0701 sq.ft. bearing Door No.31, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. The plaintiff Bank was looking for office space in order to expand its banki...
Mehta Hospitals Private Limited Vs. Mehta Children's Hospitals Private ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to sanction the Scheme of Amalgamation.) 1. These company petitions are preferred under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor company with the transferee company with effect from 01.04.2015. The scheme of amalgamation (in short scheme) is appended as Annexure 'C' to these petitions. 2. The petitioner in C.P.No.124 of 2016 is the transferor company and the petitioner in C.P.No.125 of 2016 is the transferee company. 3. A perusal of the records show that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed procedure. It is stated that there is one secured creditor each as far as transferor company as well as transferee company are concerned and the certificates of the Chartered Accountant confirming the same are appended as Annexure 'E' to these petitions. The transferor company as well as the transferee company have obtained the consents of thei...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »