Chennai Court September 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.
D. Dhanasekaran Vs. V. Damodharan (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.08.2006 made in C.S.No.701 of 2003.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.08.2006 of the learned single Judge made in C.S.No.701 of 2003. 2. The appellant is the first defendant. The first respondent passed away during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs have already been on record as respondents 2 to 5. 3. The plaint averments are as follows : (i) The first respondent / plaintiff Damodharan married Jayalakshmi and they got three sons and two daughters, who are defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiff in his early days with great difficulties looked after the affairs of his entire family. He started his own business in 1962 by purchasing kerosene in open market and selling in retail by carrying the same in hand cart without any license. In the year 1973,...
Mahalakshmi Vs. Anandam and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 24.04.2006, passed in A.S.No.7 of 2006, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 08.06.2005, passed in O.S.No.146 of 2000, by the learned District Munsif, Virudhunagar.) 1. The first respondent / plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.146 of 2000, before the learned District Munsif, Virudhunagar, initially as against one Raji Reddiar, for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to her. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant Raji Reddiar died and hence his legal heirs, namely, the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 herein were impleaded as defendants. The suit property is a residential house. The suit was partly allowed, by Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2005. The prayer for declaration was granted in favour of the f...
V. Devasagayam Vs. N. Sudamani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.09.2013 made in I.A.No.1389 of 2013 in I.A.No.659 of 2013 in O.S.No.32 of 2012 before the Additional District Judge-II, Poonamallee.) 1. Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1389 of 2013 in I.A.No.659 of 2013 in O.S.No.32 of 2012 before the Additional District Judge-II, Poonamallee, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.32 of 2012 for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. 3. Since the plaintiff failed to appear before the trial Court on 16.04.2013, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.659 of 2013 under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code to restore the suit. After contest, the trial Court allowed the application in I.A.No.659 of 2013 on condition the plaintiff paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- to t...
Sudhakar and Others Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Meenamb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(ii) of Cr.P.C. challenging judgement of conviction and sentenced passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.694 of 2005 dated 17.07.2014.) Common Judgement S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.406 of 2014 are Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the sole appellant in Crl.A.No.397 of 2014 is Accused No.4 in S.C.No.694 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. The trial court framed as many as eight charges against the accused as detailed below:- ad>Charge NumberCharge(s) framed againstPenal provision under which charge framed1A1 to A3Section 120(B) of IPC2A1 to A3Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC3A1 to A3Section 201 of IPC4A1 to A3Section 392 r/w 397 of IPC5A4Section 465 of IPC6A4Section 468 of IPC7A1 to A3Section 465 r/w 109 of IPC8A1 to A3Section 468 r/w 109 of IPC The trial court, by judgement dated 17.07.2014, convicted and sentenced the accused under various penal provisions as det...
A. Ranganathan Vs. A.N. Kumaresan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 4.5.2016 made in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1035 of 2016, on the file of this Court.) 1. The Review Petition filed by the revision Petitioner is not maintainable at this stage. Already this Court by order, dated 4.5.2016 dismissed the revision, with liberty to move the court concerned and raise all his objections before the said Court. Therefore the earlier order of this Court has clearly given liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Civil Court to file appropriate application before the Court concerned. Without resorting to the observation made by this Court, the present Review Petition has been filed and hence the same is not maintainable. 2. In view of the same, the Review Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed....
The President, Akriti Flat Owners Association, Chennai Vs. T.P. Mathew ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 22.06.2011 made in C.A.No.3227 of 2007 in C.P.No.130 of 1999 on the file of this Court.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. M/s.Anubhav Group of Companies went into liquidation and is now represented through the Official Liquidator. Prior to liquidation proceedings, the said respondent has developed the property and constructed flats on property No.221 (Old No.163/138), Velacherry Main Road, Sembakkam, Chennai, which was sold to different flat owners. The flat owners acquired rights to different flats along with undivided proportionate shares of the land. 2. It is the adjacent property plot bearing No.131/18, which was sold on as is where isbasis in a public auction, after the liquidation proceedings, to the first respondent. It is the case of the first respondent that when they purchased the property on as is where is basis they were shown access ...
S. Sekar Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpora ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the order of dismissal dated 11.02.2011 in No.2807/legal-3/Disciplinary/TNSTC/2010 passed by the second respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has circulated a letter dated 07.09.2016 to the Registry seeking withdrawal of this writ petition. 2. Recording the same, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs....
C. Raju Vs. State of Tamilnadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Chenna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the record of the first respondent, pertaining to the order made in C.No.02/G/IS TPR (C)/2016 dated 14.1.2016 in detaining the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1983 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely Pandi @ Pandian, son of Raju, who is detained at the Borstal School, Pudukottai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records, relating to the detention order dated 14.1.2016 passed in C.No.02/G/IS TPR (C)/2016 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenu by name Pandi @ Pandian, son of Raju, and quash the same. 2. The Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, as sponsoring authority, has submitte...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.R.Nagasundaram, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant and Mr.K.Chozhan, Learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused. 2.The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Crl.O.P.No.12960 of 2016 before this Court 'Seeking Leave' to file an 'Appeal' in Crl.A.SR.No.5280 of 2016 as against the judgment dated 20.08.2015 made in C.C.No.1004 of 2011 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-IV, George Town, Chennai in acquitting the Respondent/Accused. 3. According to the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant, pursuant to certain debts due and payable by the Respondent/Accused in the course of his business as well as personal money transactions, the Respondent/Accused had drawn and issued cheques in his favour. It appears that believing the words of the Respondent/Accused to be true, the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant presented the cheques for collection through his bankers. However, to the shock and dismay of the ...
Balasubramani and Others Vs. State rep. by its Inspector of Police, Ko ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-20-2016
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 05.02.2014 passed in S.C.No.169 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul and acquit the Appellants/Accused from all the charges leveled against them.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The appellants are the accused No:1 to 5 in S.C.No.169/2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The trial court framed charges for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 34, 506 (2) of I.P.C against this Appellants/Accused 1 to 5, under section 326 of I.P.C against the accused 1, 2, 4, and 5 and under section 341 of IPC against the accused No:3. 2. The Trial Court by Judgment dated 5.2.2014 convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused 1 to 5 under Section 148 of I.P.C to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, further convicted and sentenced the accused 1 to 5 under Section 302 of I.P.C to undergo Life ...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »