Chennai Court January 2017 Judgments
Thulukkanammal (Deceased) and Others Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, agianst the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2007 and made in A.S.No.297 of 2005 on the file of V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and Decree dated 08.09.2004 and made in O.S.No.2777 of 1999 on the file of XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2007 made in A.S.No.297 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2004 made in O.S.No.2777 of 1999 on the file of the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal. (a)Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs had not established their title or possession over the suit property when their sale deeds, Ex....
Tag this Judgment!P. Saravanarajan Vs. Devakumari and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, directing respondents to produce the minor daughter, namely, Shruthi, aged about 6 years, who has been abducted and now in the illegal detention against the order's of the United Kingdom Court, by the first respondent herein, namely, Mrs.Devakumari, daughter of Rajendran, and hand over the custody of the minor girl child to the petitioner.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the minor daughter, namely, Shruthi, aged about six years, who had been abducted and kept under the illegal custody, by the first respondent, contrary to the order passed by the Royal Court of Justice, Strand, Londan, England, and to hand over the minor girl child to the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!V. Elango Vs. Susi Ganesan, Film Director and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer:- This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order II Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, for the reliefs as stated therein.) This civil suit had been filed to pass a judgement and decree against the Defendants:- a. granting declaration, declaring that the Plaintiff is alone entitled to exploit all Audio Compact Discs and Digital Versatile Discs copyrights inclusive of Satellite Television Broadcast rights, Direct to Home Broadcast, Direct Satellite Service, Terrestrial Television Broadcast and all other rights connected therewith to the titles for a period of fifteen years pertaining to the schedule below. b. granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner exploiting, making, selling or offering to sell and exhibiting or infringing the Indian Audio / Video rights towards VCD, LCD to the Schedule as mentioned in the Plaint inclusive of Satellite Television Broadcast rights, Direct to Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaboobsa Begum Vs. Soorsha Makkan Wakf, Represented by its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 to reject the plaint in C.S.No.136 of 2011.) 1. The defendants 1 to 3 in C.S.No.136 of 2011 have taken out this application seeking to reject the plaint in the above suit on the ground that the suit property is a Wakf property. 2. The case of the applicants/original defendants 1 to 3 is that the original defendants 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of late Nawabzada Nawab Ali Khan, who was the absolute owner of the immovable property measuring a total extent of 3.68 acres. The said Nawab Ali Khan was directed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, by its proceedings dated 25.4.2000, to approach the Wakf Tribunal, to declare that the Suit properties are not a Wakf Property. Accordingly, the suit was filed before the Wakf Tribunal. When the matter stood thus, the 1strespondent/ original plaintiff herein filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against t...
Tag this Judgment!The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai and Another Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 08.09.2014 made in W.P.No.22699 of 2014.) Nootyramamohana Rao, J. 1. This in-house appeal is preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent by the Director of School Education as well as the Teachers Recruitment Board calling in question the correctness of the order and judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 08.09.2014 in W.P.No.22699 of 2014. 2. The respondent/Writ Petitioner had to institute the above said Writ Petition as his candidature for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (English) has been rejected. According to the Writ Petitioner, he passed 10thStandard in March 1999, 12th Standard in the year 2001 and thereafter, obtained Diploma in Teacher Education by studying the course between the years 2002-2004. He sought for admission in Under Graduate Degree course of the Madras University in the year 2004 and completed the said course in 2007. It is thereafter that he ...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Mani and Another Vs. Vijayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, praying to set aside the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.330 of 2011 in O.S.No.117 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur, dated 18.10.2011 and allow the Civil Revision Petition.) 1. The defendants 4 and 5 are the revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the order in I.A.No.330 of 2011 in O.S.No.117 of 2010, dated 18.10.2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mettur. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2010 before the Subordinate Court, Mettur against the petitioner and other defendants 1 to 3 for partition. The said suit was decreed ex-parte, against the petitioners/defendants 4 and 5 on 11.09.2007. 3. Therefore, the petitioners/defendants 4 and 5 has filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 11.09.2007 in O.S.No.117 of 2010, along with the application to condone the delay of 991 days for filing the set aside a...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner, A/m. Angalamman Thirukoil, Villupuram and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Gingee.) 1. The defendants 5 and 6 are the revision petitioners. 2. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs has filed the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2017 seeking mandatory injunction against the temple authorities of A/m.Angalamman Thirukoil, Melmalaiyanur to provide the basic amenities to the devotees who come to the said temple during the festivals. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have also filed an application seeking interim injunction restraining the temple authorities from conducting the Unjal festival on Amavasai day due to lack of amenities. The Court below has also granted interim injunction till 07.02.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the temple authorities are before this Court, in this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Athappan (deceased) and Others Vs. Sengoda Gounder and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 made in A.S.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 10.12.2009 made in O.S.No.200 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the Judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 made in A.S.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 10.12.2009 made in O.S.No.200 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration. (a)Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing a suit which is against the evidence let in by the parties to the suit? 3....
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Pens International Pvt. Limited by its Company Secretary Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer:- This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and read with Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for the reliefs as stated therein.) This civil suit had been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:- (a) granting declaration, declaring that the threats issued by the Defendant through their legal notice dated 9th December 2010 is unjustified and groundless. (b) granting perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendant and their men from in any manner threatening the Plaintiff directly or indirectly by notices, letters, advertisements, circulars or by any other means, regarding use of the brand name REYNOLDS BRITE in the course of its business in relation to its products, goods, services and thereby interfere, harm and/or injure the business of the Plaintiff. (c) directing the Defendant to compensate the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- or such other amount for the damages sustained on accoun...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramesh Vs. The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer in CRP (NPD) No.285 of 2017: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in I.A.No.372 of 2015 in A.I.R.S.A.No.346 of 2015. CRP (NPD) No.286 of 2017: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in I.A.No.372 of 2015 in A.I.R.S.A.No.346 of 2015.) Common Order: S. Manikumar, J. 1. CRP (NPD)No.285 of 2017, is filed to set aside the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, in I.A.No.372 of 2015 in A.I.R.S.A.No.346 of 2015, in and by which, the petitioner herein has been directed to deposit Rs.1.10 Crores, in the name of the Registrar, DRAT, Chennai, within one month from the date of passing of the order, failing which, Application viz., I.A.No.372 of 2015 shall stand dismissed, resulting...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »