Chennai Court December 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.
Haja Mohideen, Proprietor M/s. Meta Audio, Chennai Vs. S.V. Thangaraj, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit has been filed to pass a judgment and decree, against the Defendant:- a) directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.49,98,500/- (Rupees forty nine lakhs ninety eight thousand and five hundred only) with interest at 24% p.a on Rs.30,50,000/- from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation. b) granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from releasing the picture ENGAL ASAAN, starring Vijayakanth and others, without settling the dues to the Plaintiff in a sum of Rs.49,98,500/-. c) directing the Defendant to pay the costs of the suit. 2. The plaint averments are that the Plaintiff is in the business of financing for production of cinematograph films and acquiring various copy rights in Tamil cinematograph films. During the course of the business, the Defendant, who is a Producer of the...
Venkatammal and Others Vs. Savithiriammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010 made in A.S.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.56 of 2000, dated 19.03.2008 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants to the Judgment and decree dated 13.12.200 made in A.S.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub ordinate Court, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2008 made in O.S.No.56 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The suit is in respect of a pathway. The plaintiff has filed a plaint plan and the same has been marked as Ex.A3. According to the plaintiff, she has purchased the property inclusive of the suit pathway from Arumugam unde...
V. Mohanraj and Another Vs. V. Jayamoorthy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition preferred under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order and decreetal order dated 07.02.2014 passed in I.A.No.11599 of 2013 in O.S.No.4820 of 2011 by the Hon'ble III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.11599 of 2013 in O.S.No.4820 of 2011. 2. The respondents herein as the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.4820 of 2011, for recovery of money. Before filing the suit, the respondents have issued notice to the petitioners/defendants. For which, the petitioners sent a reply. Since suit summons was not served on the petitioners, substituted service has been ordered. Publication in Makkal Kural has been effected. The petitioners was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 27.04.2012. After receipt of the notice in the Execution Petition proceedings on 04.07.2013, the petitioners filed an appl...
Ponnammal and Others Vs. R. Anand and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded in the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2008 made in MCOP.No.554 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Court, Erode.) 1. The claimants are the legal heirs of one Nachimuthu @ Nachimuthu Gounder, who died in a road accident that took place on 03.06.2007. He, at the relevant time was riding his TVS-50 bearing Registration No.TN-33-A-5466, when a Toyota Qualis LMV bearing Registration No.TN 30B-7681, belonging to the second respondent and driven by the first respondent, dashed against him and owing to multiple injuries that he suffered, he presumably died on the way to the hospital. On various heads, the claimants made a consolidated claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, whereas the Tribunal has passed an award for Rs.92,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased Nachimuthu @ Nachimuthu Go...
Sheikmeeran and Others Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police, Madur ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.39 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.39 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.12.2009 at about 14.45 hrs, in Melur to Alagarkovil Road, Pallavarayanpatti, near thatched shed of A1/Sheik Meeran, a load van bearing Registration No. TN 69 B 6042 was found in possession of 80 chippams of PDS boiled rice and then, on the western side of the thatched shed room another 310 chippams of boiled PDS rice and further on the eastern side thatched shed room another 900 chippams of boiled PDS rice were seized. All the above said stated PDS rice bags were seized in the presence of Revenue Of...
The Central Board of Excise and Customs Government of India, Ministry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17282of 2014.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, whereby learned single Judge had set aside the show cause notice issued by the 2nd appellant insofar as it related to imposition of excise duty, interest and penalty on the product 'fly ash'. 2. An abstract outline of the facts, which led to to the filing of the writ appeal is outlined hereunder :- The respondent is one of the various Thermal Stations of TANGEDCO. The respondent is engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity falling under Chapter sub-heading 26219000 and 68159910 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The respondent was visited with a show cause notice by the 2nd appellant for contravention of Rules 4, 6 and 8 to 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short 'the Rules'). The show ...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2013 made in MCOP.No.896 of 2013 on the file of the Special Sub Judge (MACT), Krishnagiri.) The appellant State Transport Corporation has come forward with this appeal challenging the award passed in MCOP.No.896 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri. 2. On 26.03.2010 at around 11.00 a.m., one Prakasam, a checking inspector of the appellant Corporation, chose to return after completing his duty by a bus bearing registration No.TN29-N-1914, that, needless to mention, belonged the appellant, and suffered major injuries leading to amputation of his left hand above the elbow when the said bus met with an accident. 3. On various heads, Prakasam claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, whereas the Tribunal considered it just and appropriate and granted him a total compensation of Rs.8,10,537/-, of which the major component was lo...
V. Kesavan Vs. Ramesh Chand Meena, Secretary to Government of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Article 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, praying this Court to punish the respondents for their delberate and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.7355 of 2014 dated 30.6.2014) 1. It is represented by both sides that the order passed in the above Writ Petition has been complied with by passing G.O.No.439, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj(U.Aa.4) Department, dated 19.10.2016 and also produced a copy of the same before this Court. 2. Recording the above said submission, the Contempt Petition is closed....
A. Mariappan and Another Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records relating to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and quash the same in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 forged the document of the defacto complainant and executed sale deed in favour of the third parties. The petitioners arrayed as A2 and A3, who are the witnesses to the execution of the said document. Hence the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in S.No.172/5 measuring 1 acre 59 cents, situated at Pappakudi Village, Sathoor Taluk, Virudhunagar District, was sold by A1 to A4. It is the case of the defact...
Tvl.IGP Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its General Manager Vs. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in his Notice in Goods Detention No.2220 to 2225/2016-17 dated 13.12.2016 and consequent notice dated 14.12.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondent to release the goods.) Common Order: 1. Issue Notice. Mr.K.Venkatesh, accepts notice for the respondent. 2. With the consent of counsel for parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. By virtue of the captioned Writ Petitions, challenge is laid by the petitioner to six (6) separate detention notices of even date, i.e., 13.12.2016 and the consequent six (6) separate compounding notices of even date, i.e., 14.12.2016. 4. The common ground between the parties is that the detention of the subject goods, which comprises of six (6) consignments of carbon steel sheets came about, as the transporter was not carrying "on-line Form JJ". 5. Coun...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »