Chennai Court January 2017 Judgments
Sankar Vs. The State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police Villupura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed against the judgment dated 23.06.2010 passed in S.C.No.140 of 2009 on the file of Special Court (Principal Sessions Court) Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram.) 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.140 of 2009 on the file of Special Court (Principal Sessions Court) Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram. He stood charged for offences under Sections 376 r/w.511 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as SC/ST Act). By judgment dated 23.06.2010, the trial court convicted him under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC read with 3(2)(v) of the the SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved over the finding of the trial court, the appellant has come forward with this appeal seeking to set aside the finding of conviction and sentence...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Satya Metal Industries, Punjab Vs. Union of India Rep by Directora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Appeals filed against the Fair and Decretal Order of this Court dated10.6.2008 in Tr.O.P.Nos.577 of 2006 and 632 of 2006 on the file of this Court.) Common Judgment: K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. These two intra court appeals are directed against the common order dated 10 June 2008 in Tr.O.P.Nos.577 and 632 of 2006 setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator, on the ground that clause 18(a) of the Conditions of contract empowers the Department of Supply to exercise lien in respect of claims pending finalization of adjudication of any other claim. The facts:- 2. The appellant entered into a contract with the first respondent for supply of water fittings vide rate contract dated 17 September 1996. The first respondent placed three orders dated 27 March 1997, 5 May 1995 and 12 May 1997. The appellant made supplies pursuant to the supply orders. However, payment was not made by the first respondent. The appellant therefore made a claim. Since there was a provision for arbitration, t...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. ALM Enterprises No.134/63, Royapuram, Chennai, by its authorized ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
Common Judgment: Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. Both these Writ Appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, calling in question the correctness of the common order dated 02.06.2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the two Writ Petitions instituted by the appellant herein in W.P. Nos.30789 and 30790 of 2016. 2. Writ Appeal No.821 of 2016 arises out of W.P.No.30789 of 2016, which is directed against the Order in Original dated 02.06.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Customs House, Chennai, with a prayer for quashing it and a consequential direction was also sought for to the Respondents to unconditionally release the goods covered under the Bill of Entry No.3611465 dated 22.10.2013. Whereas Writ Appeal No.822 of 2016 arises out of W.P.No.30790 of 2016, which in turn is directed against the order passed on 09.09.2015 by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Gr.2), Customs House, Chennai, with a direction to provisionally release the good...
Tag this Judgment!Chellappan Vs. Poongavanam Pillai
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 01.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurantagam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.184 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantagam.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2010 passed in A.S.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Madhuranthagam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.184 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madhuranthagam. 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 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff are misdirected against the evidence on record and based upon the perverse findings?" 3. The suit h...
Tag this Judgment!S. Perumal Vs. R. Saraswathi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure, against the fair and executable order, dated 10.11.2009, made in I.A.No.205 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2009, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and executable order, dated 10.11.2009, made in I.A.No.205 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2009, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The first respondent is the third party to the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2009 and petitioner in I.A.No. 205 of 2009. The respondents 2 to 6 are the defendants 1 to 5. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2009 before the Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, for declaration to declare that the sale deed, dated 15.07.1986, executed by the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the fifth respondent/fourth defendant and also to declare that...
Tag this Judgment!Chakravarthy and Another Vs. Arasayee
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 08.09.2010 in A.S.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Vriddhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2007 in O.S.No.303 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Vriddhachalam.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2010 made in A.S.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Court, FTC No.3, Virddhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2007 made in O.S.No.303/2003 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Virddhachalam. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal. "Are not the judgment and decree of the courts below liable to be set aside for non consideration of the material evidence avail...
Tag this Judgment!The Pondicherry University, Represented by its Registrar, Dr. B.R. Amb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: W.A.No.263 of 2015 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 26.06.2014, passed in W.P.No.18369 of 2013, on the file of this Court. W.A.No.264 of 2015 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 26.06.2014, passed in W.P.No.18370 of 2013, on the file of this Court.) Judgment: Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. These Writ Appeals have been preferred by Pondicherry University, the second respondent in the Writ Petitions, aggrieved by the order rendered on 26.06.2014 by our learned Brother, Justice S.Vaidyanathan. First respondents in both these appeals are the students concerned, whose Writ Petitions have been allowed by the learned single Judge. 2. The relevant facts are these : Writ petitioner students have secured admission in BDS Course under 'Non-Resident Indian/NRI Sponsored/Foreign Students category'. Five seats were allocated for admission to this category. The students were provisionally granted admission on 07.08.2012 ...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam (Died) and Others Vs. T.N. Subramaniam (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai dated 29.06.2011, made in I.A.No.253 of 2009 in O.S.No.472 of 2009.) 1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in I.A.No.253 of 2009 in O.S.No.308 of 1992, dated 29.06.2011. 2. Heard Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel for Mr.V.P.K.Gowtham, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8 and 11. 3. It could be seen that the suit was filed for partition and the same was contested by the predecessors in title of the revision petitioner and the respondents and the trial Court has decreed the suit which later appears to also have confirmed by the appellate Court. When the matter stood thus, ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kaliammal Vs. Joint Sub Registrar I, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare that the Deed of Cancellation of Settlement deed executed by late K.Chockalingam dated 12.01.2009 registered as Document No.117 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent purporting to cancel the settlement deed bearing document no.6238 of 2005 dated 02.09.2005 on the file of the 1st respondent executed by the late K.Chockalingam in favour of the petitioner herein, is null and void and not binding upon the petitioner.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare that . the deed of cancellation of settlement deed executed by late K.Chockalingam is illegal. 2. According to the petitioner, the property was originally purchased by K.Chockalingam by registered document No.2859 of 1988 on 02.08.1988. Thereafter, the said Chockalingam had constructed house and shops in the subject property. He was married to one Deivanaiammal and the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusamy Vs. S. Kaliammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
(Prayer: This Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2011 made in O.S.No.784/2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore.) Judgment: 1. The 1st defendant, who suffered a decree for partition and separate position of 1/6th share in the items 1 to 3 and 1/3rd share in Item 4, is the appellant. 2. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties belonged to joint family consisting of her farther Ramasamy Gounder and 1st defendant Muthusamy. The said Remasamy Gounder died on 02.09.1988 leaving behind his wife Maruthakkal, two daughters Kaliammal (senior) and Kaliammal (junior) and 1st defendant, being the son. The plaintiff would claim that all the four items of properties belonged to the said joint family and seek partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit properties. 3. The suit was resisted by the 1st defendant contending that not all the properties were...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »