Chennai Court January 2017 Judgments
Singaravel Vs. Balamurugan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005 passed in O.S.No.573 of 2000 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the first defendant against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005 passed in O.S.No.573 of 2000 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in accepting the case of the plaintiff are based upon the perverse findings and misdirec...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Watthour Systems, Rep. by its Proprietor Paramjith Singh Vs. The ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Detention Notice made by the 3rd respondent in Goods Detention Notice NO.4396/ 2016- 2017 dated 18.01.2017 and quash the same as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and further direct the respondents to release the goods without imposing any condition of payment.) 1. Issue Notice. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsels for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 1.1. Mr.Annamalai says that he does not wish to file a counter affdavit in the matter. 2. This writ petition is directed against the Goods Detention Notice dated 18.01.2017. 3. In order to adjudicate upon the matter, the following facts and averments made in the Writ Petition are required to be noticed: 3.1. T...
Tag this Judgment!G. Dhanasekaran Vs. Inspector General of Registration, Pattinampakkam, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the first respondent-Inspector General of Registration in the proceedings in Lr.No.11161/A2/2015, dated 10.12.2015 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to restore the seniority of the petitioner according to the rank fixed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the directly recruited post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II and to include the name of the petitioner in the temporary panel of Sub-Registrar Grade-I for the year 2011-12 over and above the third respondent with consequential service benefits including further promotion.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the first respondent-Inspector General of Registration in the proceedings in Lr.No.11161/A2/2015, dated 10.12.2015 and quash the same and direct...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sankar Nadar and Another Vs. Deva Krishnan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-20-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.9 of 2010, dated 29.06.2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam in reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.6 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam.) 1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.9 of 2010, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 6 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam. 2. The defendants are the appellants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.6 of 2009 for specific performance and permanent injunction. 3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows: (i) According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to the first defendant by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 18.03.1980....
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Trans India Resorts having its Reg. Office at No.37/10, T. Nagar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed against proceedings in C.C.No.15945 of 2003 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.) Common Order: 1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.15945 of 2003 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18322 of 2016 is M/s.Trans India Resorts and is represented by its Director Mr.Marimuthu and has been arrayed as A-3. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17311 of 2016 is Mr.M.Manivannan, is alleged to be a staff of TIRL, have obtained the signature of notary in the share pledged agreements and also obtained the false Notary Certificates from the notary Shri.Radhakrishnan. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17311 of 2016 has been arrayed as A-4. The charge sheet has been filed against the above accused persons for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B r/w.420, 467, 468, r/w.468 IPC, i...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohana Priya and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the order of detention, dated 5.7.2016, bearing C.M.P.No.48/Bootlegger/Salem City/2016, on the file of the second respondent and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu, namely, Kandasamy, S/o.Muthusamy, now confined in the Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and to set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Kandasamy, aged about 41 years, son of Muthusamy, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Detention Order No.48/Bootlegger/Salem City/2016, dated 5.7.2016, passed by the second respondent herein, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders...
Tag this Judgment!Philip Navaratinam Vs. Paul Ponniah(died) and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-20-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.56 of 2007, dated 25.04.2007, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1422 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai, dated 19.01.2007.) 1. The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.56 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1422 of 2004, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai. 2. The defendant is the appellant. The respondents 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1422 of 2004 for permanent injunction. 3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows: (i) According to the plaintiff, originally the suit property was owned by one Pappamal ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarala Bardia Vs. The Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent bank to refund the sum of Rs.11,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 02.12.2012 to the petitioner.) The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The respondent bank had conducted an auction sale of property situated at Door No.2/393 and 394, Kengari Revenue Village Panchayat, comprised in Survey No.193, Kilkotagiri, Nilgiris District on 02.02.2012 under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by inviting tenders for open auction. The petitioner was declared as successful bidder. The respondent had issued a sale certificate after receiving a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- towards sale consideration. On the same day, the possession of the property was also handed over to the petitioner. After taking possession, the petitioner realised that the property auctioned in Old Survey No.193 has been changed into New Survey No.404/8 which inturn was sub divided as S.No.404/8-A,...
Tag this Judgment!Veda Sushila Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records leading to the passing of the order of detention, vide detention order BCDFGISSSV No.627/2016, dated 30.6.2016, on the file of the second respondent, against the petitioner's husband, by name, Shanmuganathan, son of Ramasamy, aged about 42 years, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to produce the said detenu, before this court, from the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Shanmuganathan, aged about 42 years, son of Ramasamy, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Detention Order BCDFGISSSV No.627/2016, dated 30.6.2016, passed by the second respondent herein, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offender...
Tag this Judgment!S. Periyakkal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Letter No.11844/S2/2011-7, dated 14.05.2013 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner by considering her service for the period between 10.09.1955 and 06.07.1972.) 1. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as School Assistant Teacher on 10.09.1955. On 06.07.1972, the petitioner had resigned his job owing to her family circumstances. Her resignation was accepted with effect from 06.07.1972 by the third respondent. As such, the petitioner had put in about 17 years of service. 2. From the date of her retirement, there was no provision for payment of pension to Government servant who had completed less than 20 years of qualifying service. Subsequently, the Government enacted the Tamil Nadu Pensio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »