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.
T. Jothimalar Vs. The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in A.No.11/2015 dated 08.01.2015 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of the initial appointment with all consequential service and monetary benefits.) Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. The writ petitioner presently working as a Junior Assistant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, called in question the legality and correctness of the order passed on 08.01.2015, by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District, declining to consider the regularisation of the services of the writ petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are lying in a very narrow compass and they are also, fortunately not in serious dispute. (i) The father of the writ petitioner while serving as an As...
M. Sakthivel Vs. J. Dakshinamoorthy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgement and decree dated 21.12.2015 made in O.S.No.10 of 2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.) S. Nagamuthu. J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvaur, is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 5 are the defendants in the suit. The 6th defendant-Mrs.G.Kasiyammal died pending trial. It was the suit filed for specific performance of contract of sale of immovable property entered into by the the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the sale consideration was agreed upon at Rs.40,68,660/- out of which, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was received by the defendants 1 and 2 by way of advance. The sale agreement is dated 19.02.2008. According to the appellant, though he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendants 1 and 2 did not perform their part of contract. Despite legal noti...
N. Manickam Vs. R. Saraswathi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2014 made in A.S.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.53 of 2011 dated 22.07.2013 by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.) Common Judgment: 1. The plaintiff, who lost before both the Courts belowin a suit for partition, is the appellant herein. 2. The brief facts are that the suit property to the extent 1710 sq.ft. was originally purchased by Nallakumara Gounder. He had one son by name Karumana Gounder. His wife purchased another extent of 462 sq.ft. on 15.09.1930. Nallakumara Gounder died and Karumana Gounder died on 24.04.1968 and his wife Nallammal died in the year 1987 respectively. Thus the suit property is the total extent of 2172 sq.ft., over which, a residential house stands as of now. Karrmana Gounder had two children by name Ramasamy and Ponnammal. Ramasamy died on 24.09.1996 leaving behind...
Valleesan Pillai Vs. A/M. Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam rep. by the Adheena ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order and decreetal order dated 03.03.2011, made in E.A.No.8 of 2006 in O.S.No.89 of 1989, on the file of the Subordinate Court at Chidambaram. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 03.03.2011 in E.A.No.1 of 2008 in E.A.No.175 of 2007 in E.A.No.8 of 2006 in E.P.No.65 of 2006 in O.S.No.89 of 1989, on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram.) Common Order: 1. This Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.1563 of 2011 is arising out of the order passed by the Sub-Court, Chidambaram E.A.No.8 of 2006 in E.P.No.65 of 2006 in O.S.No.89 of 1989 dated 03.03.2011 dismissing the application filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 of CPC. 2. This Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.2330 of 2011 is arising out of the order passed by the Sub-Court, Chidambaram in E.A.No.1 of 2008 in O.S.No.89 of 1989 dated 03.03.2011 allowing the applica...
Vadivel, Represented by his power Agent, Kumaraguru Vs. Murugaiyan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.Nos.61 of 2007 and 24 of 2007 dated 13.11.2009 on the file of the Court of Sub ordinate Judge, Chidambaram in confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.Nos.247 of 2003 and 88 of 2003 dated 31.08.2006 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram.) Common Judgment: S.A.No.93 of 2011 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.61 of 2007 dated 13.11.2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.247 of 2003 dated 31.08.2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram. S.A.No.98 of 2011 Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2009 passed in A.S.No.24 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2...
The Sivkasi Master Printers Association, Rep. By its President K.A.P.A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.20366/99/H-1 dated 20.06.2002, enhancing the licence fee payable for running Industries and Factories, published in Virudhunagar District Gazette No.7, dated 26.08.2002, in so far as Item Nos.96[a], 99[a to o], 103[4], [5], [6], [22], [23], [27], [28], [29], [30], [34], [45-a], [45-b], [48], [52], [53], [57], [58] and [59] of the Schedule to the licence fees are concerned; same as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and exorbitant in so far as the members of the petitioner association are concerned.) 1. The petitioner Association represents the interest of Offset Printers of Sivakasi. The Notification dated 26.08.2002, raising the licence fee payable to the Sivakasi Municipality is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard Mr.P.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Pattabirama...
Parasuraman Vs. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2015 passed in A.S.No.14 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Polur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2014 passed in I.A.No.216 of 2011 in O.S.No.180 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Polur.) 1. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff, seeking maintenance, partition and mesne profits on the premise that she is the first wife of the first defendant Kuppa Gounder. The appellant, who has been arrayed as the 6th defendant in the suit, is none other than the son of the plaintiff. As the suit was not contested, a preliminary decree was passed for 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff. Placing reliance upon the said preliminary decree dated 24.09.1986, the appellant filed a separate suit for declaration as the original plaintiff in the present suit died by that time. Thus, the plaintiff has sought among other things, enlargement of his share. The subsequent suit ...
The Union of India, Rep. by Its General Manager, Intergral Coach Facto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to O.A.No.1124 of 2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the 5th respondent and quash the order dated 30.08.2013.) V. Parthiban,J. 1. The Writ Petition is filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 30.08.2013 in O.A.No.1124 of 2012 and M.A.No.718 of 2012 disposing of the Original Application filed by the first respondent herein. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal, Union of India is before this Court. 2. The first respondent / employee approached the learned Tribunal seeking for the following reliefs:- "to call for the connected records from the respondents herein, pertaining to the Direct Recruitment Quota, advertised under CEN No.05/2010 (Annexure A.2) for the post of Senior Section Engineer (Drawing)/Civil formerly known as Section Engineer (Drawing...
Real Image Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Authorised rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule VII of CPC and Rule IV of Original Side Rules to pass the following judgment and decree (A) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agent/agents or any person claiming through or under the defendant, from in any manner infringing the Copyright of the plaintiff over the QUBE software. (b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from breaching the Employee Non Competition, Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement dated 22.05.2006 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant (c) award the plaintiff the costs of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner infringing the Copyright of the plaintiff company over the QUBE software and also for permanent injunction from breaching the Employee Non Competition, Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement dated 22.05.2006 entered into between the plaintiff company and the defendant. 2. The br...
Kamaraj Vs. State by: Inspector of Police Karumanthurai Police Station ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment dated 11.03.2016 made in S.C.No.90 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.) 1. The Appellant (Accused) has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court (as aggrieved person), as against the Judgment dated 11.03.2016 in S.C.No.90 of 2013 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem. 2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.90 of 2013 dated 11.03.2016, at paragraph-27 had observed that ''PW.5 (Thangaraj) had stated that the Accused Kamaraj (Appellant) had informed that Banu Priya (his wife) should not proceed to Salem quite often''. But in this regard, on behalf of the Accused (Appellant), no question was put to PW.5. Likewise, PW.1 in his evidence had clearly deposed that her daughter, after her marriage, had not gone for employment. On behalf of the Accused (Appellant side), no witnesses were examined to show that subsequent to the marria...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »