Chennai Court November 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.
R. Celin Rajakkannu and Others Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Revenue A ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 21.12.2006 in his proceedings Na.ka.gzp 5(3)65118/05, confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent dated 07.06.2006 passed in Na.Ka.No.A1/12603/2006 as confirmed by the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 25.01.2006 passed in Na.Ka.No.11538-2005(A3), quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to treat the first respondents husband Thiru.A.Rajakannu (late) deemed to have been retired from service on 31.08.2006 with consequential benefits payable to the petitioner including retirement benefits as well as family pension etc., with arrears of salary with interest within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 21.12.2006, confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent dated 07.06.2006 as confirmed by the orders of the 3rd resp...
M/s. Sagar Constructions and Another Vs. S.B. Sivakamiammal (deceased) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: O.S.A.No.333 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in Application No.1293 of 2008 in E.P.No.132 of 2003 dated 18.09.2009. O.S.A.No.334 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in Application No.1294 of 2008 in E.P.No.132 of 2003 dated 18.09.2009. O.S.A.No.335 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in Application No.1295 of 2008 in E.P.No.134 of 2003 dated 18.09.2009. O.S.A.No.336 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in Application No.1296 of 2008 in E.P.No.134 of 2003 dated 18.09.2009.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. These appeals are filed against the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by this Court in A.Nos.1293 and 1294 of 2008 in E.P.No.132 of 2003 a...
Ramaiah Mudaliar and Another Vs. Arumuga Mudaliar (Died), and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer:Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1998 made in A.S.No.58 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 29.09.1995, made in O.S.No.70 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sencottai.) 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1998 made in A.S.No.58 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 29.09.1995, made in O.S.No.70 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sencottai. 2. The appellants are the defendants, who succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court. The first respondent and one Periyanayaga Mudaliar filed a suit in O.S.No.70 of 1992 before the District Munsif Court, Sencottai, for a declaration, declaring Schedule II property as common pathway and for an injunction restraining the appellants fr...
Maria Francis (Died) and Others Vs. M. Varghese @ Maria Varghese and O ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, passed in A.S.No.55 of 2001, dated 11.06.2004 confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, passed in O.S.No.293 of 1996, dated 14.03.2001.) 1. The legal representatives of the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.293 of 1996 on the file of the District Munisif Court, Eraniel, are the appellants in the above second appeal. 2. The first respondent in this appeal filed the suit in O.S.No.293 of 1996 for partition of his share in suit schedule items 1, 2, 4 and 5 and 8/11 share in suit schedule 3rd item of the property. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit items 1 and 2 were jointly purchased by the plaintiff and the first defendant under different sale deeds. The plaintiff further stated that the suit items 4 and 5 are the ancestral properties belong to both the ...
Arjunan Vs. Ponnusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
T. Ravindran, J. 1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made by the defendant against the Judgment and decree dated 25.08.2010 made in A.S. No. 45 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2009 made in O.S. No. 280 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsiff at Krishnagiri. 2. Suit for declaration and possession. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The suit "A" schedule property was originally owned by the sons of G. Ponnusamy Naidu namely (i) Narayanasamy (ii) Durairaj and the plaintiff was cultivating the suit "A" schedule property for the past 10 years and purchased the same from them for consideration under a Sale Deed dated 26.05.2005. The defendant had attempted to purchase the suit property. However, as the property was sold to the plaintiff, the defendant aggrieved over the same in the first week of December 2005 encroached the western side of the suit "A" schedule property to an extent abo...
Palaniammal Vs. S. Ravikumar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 17.7.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1753 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Salem.) 1. The appellants, being the claimants, having lost their breadwinner at the age of 35 years in the accident that took place on 8.1.2007 at about 8.00 A.M., aggrieved by the impugned award dated 17.7.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1753 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Salem awarding a sum of Rs.4,29,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, have brought this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that when the breadwinner of the claimants' family was working as a Powerloom Supervisor and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has unreasonably fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased a...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Court, had passed an order, on 26.10.2016, in H.C.P.No.2317 of 2016, granting leave to the detenu, to attend the funeral ceremonies, relating to the death of his brother, with the following conditions:- 6. In view of the above, we pass the following order: a. The detenu, namely, K.Manickam @ Poonganagar Manickam, who is now confined at Central Prison, Salem, is permitted to go on Parole, from 4.00 p.m., on 31.10.2016 to 4.00 p.m., on 2.11.2016. b. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Salem, is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders releasing the detenu on Parole, as aforestated. c. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the detenu, namely, K.Manickam @ Poonganagar Manickam, on production of a copy of this order. d. It is made clear that the detenu should be brought back to the Central Prison,...
Mary Selvam Vs. Christy and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.158 of 2009 in O.S.No.4 of 2009, dated 17.2.2010, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the 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. No costs....
M/s. Standard Shoe Sole and Mould Vs. The Customs, Central Excise and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
1. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. 2. The petitioner was earlier known as M/s.Chemcrown India Limited and it was a 100% export oriented unit located at Puducherry. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai-1 - the first respondent herein (hereinafter called the Settlement Commission) dated 25.5.2016 passed on an application filed by the petitioner for settlement of their case after a show cause notice dated 22.9.1997 was issued to the petitioner demanding duty to the tune of Rs.3,28,27,082/- under Section 72(1)(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act) and proposing to levy penalty under Section 112 of the Act. 3. The petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Commission on 31.8.2005 and by then, their name stood changed as M/s.Standard Shoe Sole and Mould (India) Limited. In the wo...
Thangamuthu and Another Vs. Lingappan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.2010 made in A.S.No.23 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Court, Namakkal reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2008 made in O.S.No.554 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif, Paramathi.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the Judgement and Decree dated 07.10.2010 made is A.S.No.23 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal reversing the Judgement and decree dated 25.02.2008 made in O.S. No.554 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramathi. 2. The suit for Permanent injunction. 3. The averments contained in the plaint are briefly stated as follows: The suit property belonged to the plaintiffs ancestrally and there is no title deed for the property and the property is situated at Kothamangalam Village, Arasampalayam Grama Natham S.No.262. Patta has been issued in favour of the plaintiff's father K...
- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- Next ›
- Last »