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.
Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd., Vs. Globalcast Asia Pte.Limited an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
Nooty.Rammohana Rao, J 1. This original side appeal has been preferred calling in question the order dated 22.9.2016 made in C.P.No.7 of 2015 by the learned Company Judge. 2. C.P.No.7 of 2015 is a creditor's petition instituted by the first respondent herein, seeking winding up of the appellant company for the ostensible inability of the appellant company to liquidate the liability of the petitioner/creditor in the company petition. The said company petition was admitted and ordered to be notified as well. To that extent, no issue is to be raised or entertained, as the matter has attained finality in view of the disposal of O.S.A.No.227 of 2015 vide judgment dated 13.6.2016. 3. The learned Company Judge, after having considered the matter elaborately, directed the appellant, by the present impugned order, to deposit in Indian rupees, an amount equivalent to four invoices, which have been referred to in the impugned order, at the exchange rate that was operating as on 9.9.2015. The depo...
Maniyanchi Village Panchayat, Represented by its President, Nalla Alag ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.416 of 2015 in O.S.No.36 of 2012, dated 6.1.2016, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti.) 1. This revision has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.416 of 2015 in O.S.No.36 of 2012, dated 06.01.2016, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti. 2. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner that an agreement was entered between the Petitioner-Panchayat and the father of the respondent, for running a Touring Talkies at Maniyanchi Village at Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District from 25.05.2001 to 28.02.2012 for a period of 12 years, measuring an extent of 82 cents in R.S.No.38/1 and R.S.No.40/1. The third installment was not paid by the respondent's father and the said property was misused for some other illegal purpo...
S. Soundarajan Vs. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner from his house situated at No.14, Vandiamman Koil Street, Padikuppam, Chennai-600 107 (bearing Town survey No. 59/3 and old Survey No.250/2 part) without following the due process of law.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner from his house situated at No.14, Vandiamman Koil Street, Padikuppam, Chennai-600 107 (bearing Town survey No. 59/3 and old Survey No.250/2 part) without following the due process of law. 2. The documents filed with the petition show that in terms of a Settlement Deed dated 23.7.2014, the father of the petitioner has settled the property in his favour. However, their appears to be certain family disputes regarding the subject matter, as the sister of the father of the petitioner filed W.P.No.7384 of...
Malliga Arulkumar Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to take necessary action to cancel the documents referred to in the order passed by the second respondent dated 24.12.2014 by considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 14.08.2015 within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. Challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 24.12.2014, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he made an application before the second respondent to cancel the Document No.1149/1984, dated 10.05.2011, registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thiruverumbur, Trichy. Based on his representation, the second respondent also conducted an enquiry and examined all the parties concerned and passed an order in his proceedings dated 24.12.2014, whereby, he has come to the conclusion that the above documents has been fraudulently created, but the...
Satbir Singh Bakshi Vs. Saroja and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 25.08.2011 made in I.A.No.55 of 2011 in O.S.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decreetal order dated 25.08.2011 made in I.A.No.55 of 2011 in O.S.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram. 2. The case of the petitioner / 3rd defendant is that the suit was filed by the respondents / plaintiffs against this petitioner along with three others for declaration of title of the suit properties in their favour and for permanent injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiffs are that the 1st plaintiff is the wife of one deceased Kuppan and the plaintiffs 2 to5 and the 4th defendant herein are the sons and daughters of the above said deceased Kuppan and the 1st defendant Tmt.Saroja. The deceased Kuppan was the original owne...
Raja Vs. State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Jayankondam Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction Judgment made in S.C.No.48 of 2013 dated 22.11.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.) 1. The Appellant / A.1 has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court, as an aggrieved person, as against the Judgment dated 22.11.2013 in S.C.No.48 of 2013 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ariyalur. 2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Ariyalur while passing the Impugned Judgment in S.C.No.48 of 2013 on 22.11.2013 at Paragraph No.27 had convicted the Appellant / A.1 and A.2 and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 294(b) of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, directed them to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment. Furthermore under modified Section of 323 of IPC, the Appellant / A.1 and A.2 were convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further directed them to undergo ...
Thangammal and Another Vs. Saraswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
The petitioners, during the fag end of the trial, filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No. 173 of 2015 to file additional written statement. The application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge both on merits as well as on the ground of delay. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The respondent filed a suit before the Subordinate Court at Perundurai in O.S. No. 164 of 2011 for partition of the suit property into three equal shares and separate allotment of one such share to her. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement. The Trial Court framed issues and thereafter, parties adduced evidence. 4. The petitioners after cross examining D1 to D3 filed an application to receive additional written statement. The petitioners by way of additional written statement wanted to take up a plea of non-joinder of necessary...
Amudha Vs. Poongodhai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010 made in A.S.No.59 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, at Pondicherry confirming the Judgment and decree dated 03.08.2007 made in O.S.No.1101 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010 made in A.S.No.59 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Pondicherry confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2007 made in O.S.No.1101 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry, the defendant has preferred this second appeal. 2. Concisely stated, the case of the respondent/plaintiff is that she is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 03.03.1974, purchased from one Kothandam and right from the date of purchase, she has been possessing and enjoying the suit property along wit...
Polyhose India Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in Lr.No.75/16 dated 16.06.2016 and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner would state that in pursuant to an E-Auction sale notice issued under the provision of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) for selling the properties, which were mortgaged to the Syndicate Bank, the petitioner has participated in the auction and was declared as a successful bidder in respect of property, which was brought for sale. The bid made by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.84,00,00,000/- was accepted and on payment of entire sale consideration, the Syndicate Bank had issued a sale certificate confirming the sale on 12.03.2014. The petitioner has presented the said sale certificate dated 12.03.2014 for registration before the fifth respondent, who advised him to pay 8% stamp charges ...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. Since the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been pending before this Court as Part-Heard matters, affidavits dated 13.10.2016, 13.10.2016, 14.10.2016, 14.10.2016, 17.10.2016 have been filed stating that 450 buses of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation have been attached by various Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Tamil Nadu in the Execution Petitions filed by the claimants. The buses have been attached for non-payment of the award amounts. By keeping the buses in the Court custody, the claimants are not able to get compensation money and the Transport Corporations are also put to loss because of the attachment of the buses. Consequently, the travelling public are put to untold hardships because of non-plying of the buses. 2. It is stated in the affidavits filed by the appellants/ Transport Corporations that Deepavali Festival is fast approaching and there is a need to operate more buses during the Deepavali Festival, as number of passengers would be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »