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.
V. Sowmiya Narayanan Vs. Velachi Reddiar
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.02.2016, made in I.A.No.39 of 2015 in O.S.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Court, Pudukottai.) Order: 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.02.2016, made in I.A.No.39 of 2015 in O.S.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Court, Pudukottai. 2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Court, Pudukottai. The first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has filed the said suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 11.06.2008. 3. The revision petitioner filed a written statement on 31.08.2009 disputing the signature in the agreement of sale, dated 11.06.2008 and filed I.A.No.22 of 2010 to send the admitted signature of the petitioner and the disputed signature found in t...
Gurusamy and Others Vs. Kuppusamy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 06.02.2014 made in I.A.No.1391 of 2012 in O.S.No.162 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankari.) Order: 1. The petitioners / plaintiffs filed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 06.02.2014 passed in I.A.No.1391 of 2012 in O.S.No.162 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankari. 2. The petitioners filed the suit for permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit I.A.No.1391 of 2012 in O.S.No.162 of 2012 was filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for a direction to note down the physical features of the entire suit property. 3. On reading of the plaint, it is clear that the description of the properties had been set out clearly and the suit itself was filed based on the description of the properties set out in the plaint. Further, it is the suit for permanent injunction and after filing the suit,...
Multivista Global Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling upon the records of the first respondent in G.O.(3D) No.47, dated 8.10.2014 in rejecting appeal petition so far as demand of regularization fee and other charges imposed by the first respondent in confirming the order dated 20.12.2012 in Lr.No.Reg/C6/21507/1999 of the second respondent so far as regularization of building put up at No.44, K.B.Dasan Road, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018 comprised in R.S.No.3781/12 (part), Block No.74 of Mylapore Village by quashing the same and consequently direct the second respondent to regularize the building put up in the aforementioned property on the basis of the amount and charges already paid by the petitioner towards regularization fee without additional payment.) Order: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. The petitioner was granted planning permission by the CMDA/ second respondent on 2.9.1997 in respect of the property at No.44,...
Dr. K. Senthil, The President, The Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(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 relating to the impugned resolution of the third respondent Council dated 17.08.2016 and the consequential proceeding issued by the third respondent Registrar in Ref. No.TNMC/G 705/2016, dated 17.08.2016 and to quash the same.) 1. The minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Chennai, dated 17.08.2016, reads as under:- The Executive Committee Meeting of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council resolves to accept the resignation of Dr.K.Senthil, President, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, submitted on 12.08.2016 and Dr.A.Jayalal, Vice-President, to continue as President In-charge of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. 1.1. This impugned resolution, dated 17.08.2016, of the Executive Committee of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Chennai, (second respondent) allegedly accepting the alleged resignation of the President, Dr.K.Senthi...
T. Devaraj and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners representations dated 10.02.2015 and 30.06.2015 within a time frame.) Common Order: 1. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Mrs.R.Varalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.783 of 2017 was initially appointed as Contract Workmen ever since the year 1984 and later his services were regularised and absorbed as Helper on 08.01.1996 and was posted in Transformer Repair Bay, Ambattur, Avadi, Chennai in the office of the Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, Guindy, Chennai. The petitioner was promoted as Fitter Grade II on 28.09.1998 and while he was working in that capacity, the third respondent had issued show cause notice dated 23.01.2001 alleging that he had produced false educat...
Kandasamy Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police Mohanur Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, dated 18.03.2011 in S.C.No.17 of 2010.) 1. The appellant herein was found guilty under Section 304 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo one year imprisonment by Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in S.C.No.17 of 2010, has come forward with this criminal appeal and seeks to set aside the said conclusion contending that he is innocent and has not committed the crime as alleged by the prosecution. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:- (i) The accused married one Lakhsmi who belonged to a different caste and because of that the accused had developed inferiority complex and felt that the other villagers are talking badly about him. While so, on 22.04.2008, at about 2.45 p.m., when the deceased Marudhayee was talking with some other women near the tamarind tree, ...
M/s. Villavarayar and Sons Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Custom Hou ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No.40670/2016, dated 21.04.2016 in Appeal No.C/40651/2015-SM passed by the second respondent.) R. Subbiah, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No.40670/2016, dated 21.04.2016 in Appeal No.C/40651/2015-SM passed by the second respondent. 2. The appellant herein filed shipping bills on behalf of the exporter M/s.Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited to export (a) plain paper (b) copier paper (c) colour printing paper (d) kraft paper (e) M.G. poster paper and (f) maplitho paper under claim for drawback. The rate of drawback for the plain paper and copier paper was 4.4% and for the rest of the paper, it was 2.4%. However, by mistake, the rate of drawback was mentioned as 4.4% as against the correct rate of 2.4% applicable to the MG poster paper exported. The Department also sanctioned the amount as classified without noticing the excess rate of drawback mentioned in...
S. Thiagarajan Vs. The Appellate Authority cum The Chief General Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent, PAD/8/620/35 and dated 9.10.2002 in confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the 2nd respondent in DPD/620/1170 and dated 14th May 2001 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on this petitioner and quash the proceedings therein as illegal, incompetent, irregular and unconstitutional and further direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service together with back wages and all attendant benefits and pass such further or other orders and thereby render justice.) 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner before this Court is a dismissed Branch Manager of the State Bank of Travancore, which is a Nationalised bank. For reasons best known, the petitioner did not make the bank which is a body corporate as a party to the writ petition as that body corporate alone could ha...
C. Gunasekaran Vs. The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Rasipura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: This Criminal revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment made in C.A.No.90 of 2009 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal dated 19.11.2010 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Nammakkal District in C.C.No.73 of 2008 dated 24.09.2009.) Order: 1. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rasipuram. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 279, 338 (2 counts) and 304(A) IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 24.09.2009, convicted the petitioner/accused under Section 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also imposed a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and convicted him under Section 279 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.500/ in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and convicted under Section 338(2 counts) and imposed a fine of...
Dee Cee Exports, Rep. By its Partner V. Kamakshi, Tirupur Vs. The Seco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Order No.14/733/02/E/111/146 dated 14.12.2002 and quash the same as illegal, unsustainable and further direct the 1st respondent to consider the claim relating to the category EU/4, treat the shipment of 6890 pecs under FCFS Quota with appropriate relief.) ORDER: 1. The petitioner is a Government recognised Export House and they export apparels / knitted garments to various quota countries. Under the Garment Export Entitlement Policy (GEEP) of the Ministry of Textiles, an exporter has to apply for allotment of quota on First Come First Served (FCFS) basis for exporting garments to countries, for which the Ministry has fixed quota. 2. In the year 2000, the petitioner applied for FCFS quota and submitted Bank Guarantee for Rs.40 Lakhs, being Earnest Money Deposit, to the Appar...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »