Chennai Court January 2017 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.
M. Parameshwari and Another Vs. M. Baskar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal orders dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, District Court-II, Kancheepuram in I.A.Nos.5, 6 and 60 of 2016 in O.S.No.48 of 2012.) 1. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the court below in allowing the applications filed by the fourth defendant, for re-open, recall and to receive the documents in O.S.No.48 of 2012 after the arguments of the plaintiff side was over, the above revisions have been filed. 3. The brief facts of the case would run thus: (i) The fourth defendant/R1 herein filed applications before the court below for re-opening the evidence of DW3, recall and to receive certain additional documents. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of those applications that the arguments of the plaintiffs were totally contrary to the plaint averments and factually they were incorrect. It was further s...
Strides Shasun Limited Rep. by its General Manager-HR-C.D.Surendran an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
(Prayer in W.P.No.32360 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to hold elections to conduct the exercise as per the code of Discipline in the petitioner establishment, after giving due notice to the respondent unions 2 to 12 and submit its report declaring the union among the petitioner unions which should be recognised by the petitioner in terms of criteria for recognition of Unions in terms of Annexure I to code of Discipline.) Prayer in W.P.No.35540 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to hold elections to conduct the exercise as per the code of Discipline in the petitioner establishment, after giving due notice to the respondent unions 2 and 3 and submit its report declaring the union among the petitioner unions which should be recognised by the peti...
Devanna Gounder and Others Vs. Semalai Gounder @ Semalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani in I.A.No.442 of 2016 in O.S.No.79 of 2012.) 1. Respondent/plaintiff. 2. The brief facts are set out thus: (i) Earlier the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. He had based his claim on the Will dated 04.02.2010. When the defendants denied the Will and also disputed the possession of the plaintiff, the amendment application has been brought out by the plaintiff to include the prayer, for delivery of possession. (ii) The said application was resisted by the revision petitioners/defendants by contending that with respect to the properties in R.S.No.63/1A and 1B, even as on the date of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff was not in possession and the above relief was available to be included in the plaint based on the same ...
Fathima and Others Vs. Noorjahan
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.52 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul, dated 24.06.2011 confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1356 of 2004, on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, dated 06.09.2006.) 1. The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.52 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1356 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul. 2. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.1356 of 2004 for declaration, injunction and recovery of possession. 3. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows: (i) According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties originally belonged to one Seshasala Naidu. Ramanuja Naidu, Seenivasan ...
K.K. Pudur Residence Welfare Association, Coimbatore rep. by Its Presi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
(Prayer IN W.P.No.9958 of 2012: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made on the 70 feet approach road in S.Nos.54/2 55/2, 56/2, 57/2, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 79/2, 91 and 92 Koundampalayam Village, Coimbatore by following the procedure of law. in W.P.No.9477 of 2015: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent passed in Na.Ka.25186/2000/Aaa1 dated 16.06.2012 quash the same and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to abide by the recitals of their letter communication dated 15.04.2014 in Na.Ka.No.2141/14/H1(West) to remove the encroachments made on the road situate in Survey Nos.54/2 3 56/2 61/2 62/3 63/3 64/2 and 65/2 of Koundampalayam Village Coimbatore(North) Taluk, Coimbatore District within a period of 3 months. in W.P.No.19121 of 2012:...
K. Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs. D. Jayanthi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
(Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant. a) Directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.38,12,500/- to the plaintiff together with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. From the date of plaint to till the date of payment as the transaction is commercial one. c) costs of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,12,500/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realiasation. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows: The first defendant is the owner of the vacant land situate in Vayalur Village. The second defendant is her husband. In the month of June 1998, the defendants approached the plaintiff for financial assistance for construction of a Kalyana Mandapam in the said vacant land and agreed to give title deeds relating to the vacant land. Accordin...
Abdur Rahman Vs. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Govt. o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate measures to stop the functioning of the 4th respondent and all other similar organizations in Tamil Nadu as a dispute adjudicating body.) 1. The petitioner has filed the present public interest litigation stated to be arising in respect of the manner in which the fourth respondent Makka Masjid Shariat Council was running the affairs and with the objective to ensure that other persons do not face a similar situation. 2. It is an admitted position that the petitioner himself had approached the fourth respondent on account of a matrimonial dispute. There is controversy as to what transpired therein, as there are allegations and counter allegations in this behalf. But, we are not required to go into that issue as that would be a matter to be examined by an appropriate Court. 3. The substantive allegation is that the fourth respondent se...
Sampathkumar and Others Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, M-1 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
(Prayer: Crl.A.Nos.83, 84 and 85 of 2016: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgement of conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore in S.C.No.75 of 2011 dated 03.12.2015. Crl.A.No.93 of 2016: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal made by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.75 of 2011 dated 03.12.2015 insofar as the Accused Nos.7 and 10 to 27 are concerned, in S.C.No.75 of 2011 dated 03.12.2015.) Common Judgement S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The Appellants in Crl.A.No.85 of 2016 are Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8; the Appellant in Crl.A.No.83 of 2016 is the Accused No.6; and the Appellant in Crl.A.No.84 of 2016 is the Accused No.9 in S.C.No.75 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore. The Appella...
S. Jothinathan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in proceedings D.No.804/2013 dated 06.12.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant monetary benefits in accordance with the existing rules.) J. Nisha Banu, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order of the second respondent dated 06.12.2013, whereby, he has ordered for recovery of excess payment granted to the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as typist on 05.11.2008 by the Principal District Judge, Erode based on the employment seniority and posted in the 1st Additional Munsif Court, Bhavani in the existing vacancy place and he was granted time scale of Rs.3200-85-4900. Subsequently, he was transferred to several Courts in Erode District and continued his service under the control of the District Pri...
Bhoothanatha Pillai Vs. Manickavasagam Pillai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: in both the C.R.Ps.: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 29.11.2016, passed in I.A.Nos.410 and 411 of 2016 in O.S.No.209 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.) Common Order: 1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the order dated 29.11.2016, passed in I.A.Nos.410 and 411 of 2016 in O.S.No.209 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. 2. Since the issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Facts of the case:- (i) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.209 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. According to the petitioner, the suit schedul...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »