Chennai Court January 2017 Judgments
Minu Chowdhri Vs. B. Manavalan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No. 94 of 2014 from the file of the Sub Court, Theni and transfer the same to any other Family Court in Chennai.) 1. Heard Mr.M.Mohamed Muzammil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner/wife to transfer H.M.O.P.No.94 of 2014 on the file of Sub Court, Theni, to any other Family Court, Chennai, filed by the respondent/husband, for divorce. 3. This Court granted an order of interim stay of further proceedings on 15.03.2016 and a copy of the order was served upon the respondent/husband on 29.03.2016 itself. A memo was also filed before the Trial Court on 16.03.2016. 4. However, the respondent filed an advance hearing petition in H.M.O.P.No.94 of 2014 filed by him and got a decree of divorce on 21.09.2016...
Tag this Judgment!Pothakudi Hyder Ali Shahib Dharga, by its sole Trustee Jainalubudeen V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.78 of 1997 dated 19.08.1998 on the file of the Additional District Court, Nagapattinam reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.NO.148 of 1993 dated 24.12.1996, on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.) 1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property which is admittedly owned by the plaintiff-Dharga. The defendant disputing the claim of the plaintiff as a sole trustee of the Dharga contended that the Dharga and its property are managed by two branches, for which the plaintiff is the representative of one branch and the defendant is the representative of the other branch. The affairs and income of the Dharga were managed on rotation. Insofar as the A schedule property is concerned, the defendant put up construction in it in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!Anti Corruption Movement rep. by its General Secretary, V.R. Chandran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the 2nd respondent or any other police authority to register FIR and investigate the same based upon the complaint given by the complainant on 30.10.2015 and 18.11.2015 u/s.13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of PC Act and u/s.409 and 467 of IPC as well as u/s.44 and 37 respectively of Water (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 against the said Dr.K.Karthikeyan and u/s.218 of IPC against the concerned incumbent of the 1st concerned and the other police officers of 1st 2 respondent, whose names not known, and Mr.Hans Raj Verma, IAS the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and his staff whose names not known, and to pas further order.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is directed to register FIR and investigate the same based upon the complaint given by the complainant on 30.10.2015 and 18.11.2015. 2. The petitioner filed the present petition...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanalakshmi Ammal Vs. S. Rajendran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2010 made in A.S.No.10/2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2009 made in O.S.No.385 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore.) 1. The second defendant, in this second appeal, has impugned the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2010 made in A.S.No.10/2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2009 made in O.S.No.385 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for partition. 3. The 4th plaintiff is the wife, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and the 5th plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant Sadasivam. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the first defendant and that, the same was owned by the first defendant's...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Periyasamy Vs. S. Anandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the Order passed in S.T.C.No.80 of 2015 dated 17.03.2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Attur.) 1. The Appellant/Complainant has focussed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 17.03.2016 in S.T.C.No.80 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Attur. 2. Although the Respondent was served with the notice, today, there is no appearance on his behalf either in person or through Learned Counsel, when the matter is taken up for hearing. Therefore, this Court proceeds with the hearing of the Criminal Appeal on merits. Preface: 3. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Attur, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.T.C.No.80 of 2015 on 17.03.2016, at paragraph 10(c), had, inter alia, observed that '... no endeavour was made on the side of the Appellant/Complainant to e...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Rajan Vs. Inspector General of Registration, Registration Departm ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned order dated 15.04.2016 in No.57611/N3/2015 and consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Pa.Mu.Tha.No.722/2010 dated 20.01.2015 and quash the same.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 15.04.2016 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 47A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner had presented a sale deed before the third respondent for registration and the same was registered as Document No.710 of 2010. However, an order came to be passed on 20.01.2015 by the Collector of Stamps under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, calling ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Temple Worshippers Society, Rep. by its President, T.R. Ramesh Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Impugned Rules of the respondent, styled as The Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 framed by the respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.260 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department (RE4-2) dated the 6thNovember, 2015 as ultra vires of Sections 43-A, 45 and 107 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) and Articles 25, 26 and 31-A (1)(b) of the Constitution of India and consequently quash the same.)M. Sundar, J. 1. This is a Public Interest Litigation ('PIL' for brevity). Petitioner is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner society' for convenience). 2. This PIL has been filed by the petitioner society assailing the vires of some provisions of a subordinate legislation, which is in the form of a set of Rules which g...
Tag this Judgment!S. Viswanathan Vs. K. Ramachandran (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, against the fair and decreetal orders dated 23.06.2000 in RCOP.No.2192 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Controller (XI Small Causes Court), Chennai as reversed in the fair and decreetal orders dated 19.07.2006 in RCA.No.585 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Court), Chennai.) 1. The Revision Petitioner is the landlord of the portion of the building in respect of Shop No.106, N.S.K.Salai, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai-26. The 1st respondent was the original tenant and during the pendency, he was died. Subsequently by taking steps the L.R.s of the 1st respondent got impleaded. 2. The short facts of the case is that the respondent/tenant failed and neglected to pay the monthly rent from 01.04.1998 to 31.08.1998. The case of the revision petitioner is that in spite of repeated demand and lawyer notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Vs. Easwaran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decretal orders, dated 28.02.2013, made in I.A.No.131 of 2012 in O.S.No.71 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the First Additional District Munsif, Bhavani, Erode District and is liable to be set aside.) 1. The issue that arises for consideration in the instant revision petition is regarding the ambit and scope of under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the appointment of Advocate Commissioner. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present civil revision petition is that the civil suit in O.S.No.71 of 2009 was filed by the respondents praying for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the cart track situated in R.S.No.142 of Patlur Village. During the pendency of the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the revision petitioner who has filed a report and plan. Later it appears that the 1st plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Duraisamy and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its District ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.1998 made in A.S.No.52 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani confirming the judgement and decree dated 26.02.1998 made in O.S.No.316 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani.) 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, in the suit filed for injunction restraining the respondent from evoking the plaintiff without following due process of law. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that :- The suit property originally belongs to one Muthayammal, W/o. Ramasamy Pooshari. The father of the plaintiff became a cultivating tenants under her and he also constructed a house in the suit land. He has improved the land by installing oil engine and enjoying it continuously by paying rent and tax. While so after the death of his father Kavery Gounder, the plaintiff's mother Kuttiam...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »