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.
Fausiza S. Kabir Vs. The Secretary, Madurai Hosiery Industries Associa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 19.10.2016, made in I.A.No.592 of 2016 in O.S.No.343 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 19.10.2016, made in I.A.No.592 of 2016 in O.S.No.343 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.343 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. 3. Facts of the case:- (i) The petitioner filed the suit for declaration that she is the owner of the suit property; for a direction to the third defendant to deliver vacant possession; and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 3 to deliver the original sale deed of the suit property, dated 02.02.1994, registered as Document No.177/94 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thamaraip...
T. Arumugasamy Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the the respondents 1 to 3 to inspect the Plastic Bottle Manufacturing Unit established by the fourth respondent in the residential area I.e., at D.No.6/1258, Indra Nagar, Sivakasi East, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District and to take necessary action to shift the same to the industrial area by considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 1.6.2016.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the fourth respondent for running the Plastic Bottle Manufacturing Unit, which according to the Petitioner causes pollution and therefore, it has to be shifted to the industrial area. 2. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. Ventilating...
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Trichengode Vs. Saritha and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002 in M.C.O.P.No.373 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Special Court), Krishnagiri.) Judgment: 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.04.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.373 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Special Court), Krishnagiri. 2. On the application filed by the claimant/respondents the trial Court, after perusing the documents filed therein directed the second respondent/appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,01,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annm from the date of application till the date of payment. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the second respondent/insurance company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the deceased was t...
Dr. R. Jayakaran Issac and Others Vs. The Church of South India, Synod ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.8.2016 passed in O.A.No.30 of 2016 in C.S.No.20 of 2016. Appeals under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.8.2016 passed in A.Nos.343 and 344 of 2016 in C.S.No.20 of 2016. Appeals under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.8.2016 passed in A.Nos.511 and 512 of 2015 in C.S.No.396 of 2015.) COMMON JUDGMENT: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CJ. 1. Litigation does not even spare God, or rather the followers find avenues of litigation even in matters of religious affairs. This is across the board irrespective of the religion. Properties held by (5) religious institutions and the power which flows from posts held, which are religious in character, seek to be t...
Sakthivel Vs. Subramaniyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal dated 4.4.2016 passed in S.T.C.No.6/2007, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram.) 1. The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the Order of Acquittal passed in S.T.C.No.6/2007 dated 04.04.2016 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, while passing the impugned order on 04.04.2016 in S.T.C.No.6/2007, at paragraph 2 had observed the following: 2.The Complainant called absent and no representation for third time at 4.25 PM., Accused absent. Petition filed and allowed. For the past Ten Years the case had been pending for the complainant's evidence only on 12.12.2015, the complainant's side evidence was closed, so this Court thinks that the complainant has no interest to conduct the case and did not co-operate to the court for the past ten years. The complainant is not appeared a...
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagercoil Vs. E.P. Ale ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2003 made in C.M.A.No.25 of 1998 on the file of the District Judge (Co-operative Tribunal) Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2003 made in C.M.A.No.25 of 1998 on the file of the District Judge (Co-operative Tribunal) Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, in and by which, the Court below had set aside direction of the respondent therein directing the appellants therein to pay a sum a sum of Rs.3,46,860/- together with interest at 18% per annum. 2. The respondents herein are the appellants in C.M.A.No.25 of 1998 and the petitioner herein is the respondent in the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned in C.M.A.No.25 of 1998. 3. The short facts leading to filing of C.M.A.No.25 of 1998 ...
P.S. Pandian and Another Vs. The District Collector, Theni and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation preferred by the Petitioner on 2.11.2016 and to restore the land in S.No.263, Onchampatti Village, Theni District allotted to the Petitioner's grand-father as Panchami land within the time frame specified by this Court.) 1. The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the second respondent to consider his representation, wherein and whereby, he sought for restoration of the land at S.No.263, Onchampatti Village, Theni District allotted to the Petitioner's grand-father as Panchami land. 2. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents; 3. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the said land allotted to the Petitioner's grand-fath...
C. Govindasamy Vs. C. Rangasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Proceedure Code praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode in O.S.No.124 of 2007 dated 23.09.2008.) Judgment: 1. The first defendant, who suffered a decree for partition and separate possession in the suit in O.S.No.124 of 2007 is the appellant. The suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share. The plaintiff had contended that he had purchased an undivided half share in the suit properties under a registered sale deed dated 03.02.2006 for a valid consideration of Rs.3,10,000/- from S.R.Chinnasamy Gounder, who is the father of the defendants. It is also a case of the plaintiff that, upon said purchase, the revenue records were also mutated and his name was included as a joint owner. From then on, the plaintiff has been paying a kist and he has been enjoying the property jointly with the said S.R.Chinnasamy Gounder. Since the joint enjo...
R. Soundararajan Vs. P. Shanmugam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 02.07.1998 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 3140 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras.) Judgment: 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.07.1998 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 3140 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the case :- The appellant, as a claimant, has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.3140 of 1995 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai, along with evidence and documents. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the final decree directing the respondents to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.56,000/- (Rupees fifty six thousand only) together with an interest at the rate of 12...
Jayesh B. Dolia Vs. Umesh M. Tahilramani (died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
1. The Executor, originally filed original petition in O.P.No.481 of 2006 to grant probate of the Will dated 03.11.2005 executed by the testatrix G.Vimala. The husband of the testatrix was shown as the respondent. As caveat was filed by him, the original petition was converted into the above Testamentary Original Suit by order of this Court dated 06.07.2007. 2. The deceased Vimala, who is the testatrix, was a resident of Madras and that she possessed all properties, within the State of Tamil Nadu. She had executed the Will on 03.11.2005. She was married to the first defendant and that they had no children. The parents of the testatrix also pre-deceased her. The testatrix had a strained relationship with the first defendant/husband. Therefore, it is stated that she had made a bequest only towards charities, appointing the plaintiff as an Executor. Hence the plaintiff has sought for a probate. 3. After the original petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit, the first defenda...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »