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/s. Glovis India Pvt Limited, Rep. by N. Srikanth, Authorised Agent, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases (XIII Additional Judge), Chennai to keep in abeyance the proceedings in C.C.No.49 of 2013 on his file, until the matter whether the petitioner s company is a manufacturer or not within the meaning of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Scheduel III of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attains finality.) 1. The Petitioner herein, incorporated as a Private Limited Company, is a group company of Hyundai Motors, is doing its business and handles export, transportation of cars and involved in procurement of components required for manufacture of car and the packed in kits are known as CKD Kits (Completely Knocked Down) and the kits so packed are exported to Hyundai Assan Otomotive Sanayi, Turkey. 2. The petitioner states that they submitted an application dated 19.08.2009 for the registration as a manufacturer with Central Excise Department for t...
Pastor Thangamuthu @ John Thangamuthu (Died) and Others Vs. K.K. Gnane ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order of the Sub- Court, Poonamallee in I.A.No.463 of 2012 in O.S.No.37 of 2005, dated 11.03.2013.) 1. The defendant in O.S.No.37 of 2005 is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the money suit based on a mortgage deed is being tried by the competent Court, wherein witnesses have been produced on either side and the trial was over. When the case was posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed an I.A.No.463 of 2012 for the re-open the evidence on the plaintiff s side in order to examine an attesting witness of the mortgage deed dated 01.11.1993. 3. By reputing the contention of the petition, the respondent filed counter saying that the said application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it was filed belatedly that too after the trial was over. So the same is not entertainable. 4. Considering the averments made in the af...
K. Pandi Vs. The Chief Engineer(Personal), Tamil Nadu Electricity Boar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings TAMIL dated 23-04-2009 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the Respondents to give upgradation as Line Inspector w.e.f. 01-01-1994 along with consequential benefits thereon within the period that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.) 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings TAMIL dated 23-04-2009, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to give upgradation as Line Inspector with effect from 01-01-1994 along with consequential benefits within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Adhoc employee in the 2nd respondent circle during 1...
K.V. Viswanathan Vs. C.V. Prasanna and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying against the order dated 27.01.2011 passed in I.A.No.25 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.221 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munisif Court, Coimbatore.) 1. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.221 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. Challenging the order in I.A.No.25 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.221 of 2006, dated 27.01.2011, this revision is filed. 2. The case of the revision petitioner/tenant is that respondents/landlords have filed R.C.O.P.No.221 of 2006 for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. In the said R.C.O.P.No.221 of 2006, this petitioner/respondent also filed his counter. 3. When the R.C.O.P.No.221 of 2006 was taken up for hearing, this petitioner who is the respondent in the above Rent Controller proceedings has not appeared. Hence, an ex-parte decree was passed in the above R.C.O.P.No.221 of 20...
J. Ramu Vs. The Assistant Engineer, City Distribution III, Villupuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2011 made in A.S.No.105 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13.04.2010 made in O.S.No.415 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2011 made in A.S. No.105 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, confirming the judgement and decree dated 13.04.2010 made in O.S.No.415 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. It is not in dispute that service connection No.29 has been allotted to the suit property by the defendants. Claiming that the meter pertaining to the above said service connection depicted inconsistent, invalid and exor...
Ramamurthi and Another Vs. The District Collector, Dharmapuri and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.9418/2015/B2, dated 31.05.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' lands in S.Nos.530/4A4 and 4A3, and S.No.529/2A of Perumbalai Village, Pennagaram Taluk in Dharmapuri District, respectively.) Common Order: 1. Challenging the impugned proceedings dated 31.05.2016 of the first respondent / the District Collector, Dharmapuri, ordering for installation of towers into the lands of the petitioners covered in S.Nos.530/4A4 and 4A3, and S.No.529/2A of Perumbalai Village, Pennagaram Taluk in Dharmapuri District, respectively, they have filed the present writ petitions seeking to quash the same with a further direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' land covered in the above said survey numbers. 2....
G. Balaraman Vs. G. Kuppuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VILL Rule 1 of C.P.C, 1908 read with Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant. (i) Declare the plaintiff have the right to share in the schedule mentioned property as preliminary decree and (ii) to appoint an advocate commissioner to divide the schedule mentioned property and handover the possession of the share of suit schedule property to the plaintiff without any encumbrances as final decree, (iii) Directing the defendants to pay the cost of the proceedings. ) 1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff praying for share in the schedule mentioned property by appointing Advocate Commissioner. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as follows: The suit property originally belonged to one Aburooppammal, who is the mother of plaintiff and the defendant herein. The said Aburooppammal passed away on 28.10.1993, leaving her husband, Gopal Naicker and the plaintiff and the defendant. Th...
M. Murugesan and Others Vs. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider and pass order on the representation of the petitioners dated 01.08.2016 on merits with regard to sanction and grant of annual increments from the years 2016, 2012 and 2013 respectively, onwards and to sanction and pay the encashment of earned leave for 30 days as on 05.07.2016 in the light of the Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.1460, Finance Department, dated 19.11.1973, Govt.Lr.No.35968/D.O.I.FR.1/93-3, PandAR Department, dated 11.01.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.1089, PandAR Department, dated 01.11.1980 within the time limit.) Common Order: 1. By consent, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the prayer sought for by the petitioners are similar in nature, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondent...
Sundar @ Ashok Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, T-16 Nazarat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: This petition filed under Section 439(1) (b) r/w 482 of Criminal Procedure code seeking modification of the condition imposed on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee in C.M.P.No.5622 of 2016 dated 5.11.2016 with the condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties one surety shall be blood relatives and one shall possess immovable property and produces the proof of residence and produce the title document for verification.) Petition for modification of the bail condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee in C.M.P.No.5622 of 2016 on 5.11.2016. 2. Petitioner is accused of having committed an offence under Section 379 I.P.C. 3. In this connection, petitioner has been arrested and remanded on 15.7.2016. 4. On 5.11.2016, the learned Magistrate was pleased to grant him default bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the following terms and conditions: ''In the result, this petition is allowed on c...
Sundari Vs. Utpal N. Shah, Nilgris District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court at Udhagamandalam, dated 27.09.2007 in A.S.No.43 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court at Coonoor, dated 09.03.2007 in O.S.No.90 of 1999.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2007 made in A.S.No.43 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Udhagamandalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2007 made in O.S.No.90 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Coonoor. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal. (i) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit when the vendor of the respondent got title only in respect of 0.02-8/16 cents under Ex.A1 and without any title his vendor sold 0.02-11/16 cents under Ex.A2? (ii) Whether the resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »