Chennai Court January 2017 Judgments
A. Govindasamy (deceased) and Others Vs. Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment dated 01.07.2010 made in A.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram in reversing the decree and judgment dated 07.01.2009 made in O.S.No.425 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2010 made in A.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file the Sub Court, Dharapuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2009 made in O.S.No.425 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The second appeal is 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 are based upon the perverse findings and misdirected against the evidence on ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajagopala Gowda Vs. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Krishnagiri and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2ndand 3rdrespondents herein to release the petitioner's Stage Carriage Bus No.KA-08-6876 (Seized by the 1strespondent now in the custody of the 3rdrespondent) forthwith.) 1. Issue Notice. Mr.R.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsels for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The only prayer that the petitioner seeks is, in the form of a direction qua, respondent nos.2 and 3, for release of his Stage Carriage Bus. 3. It is the stand of the petitioner before me, that he has been issued an interstate enclave route permit by STA Bangalore, in respect of the following route: Tarahunase to Hosakote via, Masthi, Beraki etc. 4. It is further averred by the petitioner that the said permit has been issued vis-a-vis, vehicle bearing registration No.KA-08-6876. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Paramasivam Vs. State rep by, The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order, dated 27.6.2016, in detention order Memo No.599/BCDFGISSSV/2016, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son Jayapaul, son of Paramasivam, aged about 24 years, detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this court and to set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, Jayapaul, aged about 24 years, son of Paramasivam, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Detention Order No.599/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 27.6.2016, passed by the second respondent herein, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas...
Tag this Judgment!Kathirvelu Vs. Sureshkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 19.04.2013, returning the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.Sr.No.3603 of 2013 in I.A.No.526 of 2011 in O.S.No.233 of 2010 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.) 1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order dated 19.04.2013 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. 2. Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.233 of 2010 against the defendant directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.7,99,359/- for recovery of the amount and the same was dismissed for default on 15.11.2010 for non-appearance of the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. Due to the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of C.P.C, to restore the suit which was dismissed for default on 15.11.2010 along with a condone delay petition seeking condonation of 44 days in filing the said application. The said applic...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
This application had been filed by the Plaintiff, seeking permission to mark the photocopies of the plaint document nos.8, 11, 12 and 13 as secondary evidence in the above suit. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it had been stated that the documents filed along with the plaint, namely, document nos.8, 11, 12 and 13 are xerox copies and consequently, permission is sought, by this application, to mark those xerox copies. 3. With respect to the document no.8, which is a lease agreement entered into between the 5th Respondent and the Applicant, the original as well as the certified copy could not be traced. It is, therefore, sought that the xerox copy, which is available, may be produced as secondary evidence. 4. With respect to the document nos.11 and 12, it had been stated that the originals had been produced before the High Court of Delhi in CS(OS)No.1625 of 2007, wherein the Applicant is the Defendant and the certified copies had been misplaced and consequently,...
Tag this Judgment!C. Manjula Vs. C. Sathyanarayana Rao and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Civil Suit No.870 of 2010 had been filed under order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, praying for a judgment and decree: a) partition and separate possession of plaintiff's half share in the schedule property and deliver to her share in the schedule property; b) costs of the above suit. Civil Suit No.967 of 2010 had been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of OS Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, praying for a judgment and decree a) for partition of the suit property viz., land, building and premises bearing Door No.3, Thangavelu Gramani Street, now known as Gokulam Colony, Chennai 600 0017, comprised in Town Survey No.4739, Resurvey No.35, Plot No.24, measuring 1 ground 39 sq.ft. i.e.2439 sq.ft. And the building thereon, admeasuring an extent of about 1400 sq.ft. Morefully described in the schedule hereunder by metes and bounds and allot share to the plaintiff and consequently, for that purpose that an Advocate Commissioner be appoi...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Bishnoi and Another Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal-I and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling the records of I.A.No.145 of 2015 in O.A.No.104 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent at Chennai culminating in the order dated 20.09.2016 and quash the same.) N. Authinathan, J. 1. The second respondent is a Financial Institution. M/s.GET Power Ltd. availed term loan facility to the tune of Rs.60,00,00,000/- from the second respondent. The petitioners and M/s.Hythro Power Corporation Limited are Guarantors for the said loan facility. The petitioners are also Directors of M/s.GET Power Ltd. and M/s.Hythro Power Corporation Limited. As on 14.07.2015, a sum of Rs.13,18,12,955/- was due from them. The second respondent initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioners and the tenth respondent/M/s.GET Power Ltd. and the eleventh respondent / M/s.Hythro Power Corporation Limited in O.A.No.104 of 2015 for recovery of Rs.13,18,12,955/-. The Writ Petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!G. Punniyamoorthy and Others Vs. Krishnamoorthy (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree, dated 06.11.2001, passed in A.S.No.76 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 31.01.2000, passed in O.S.No.1821 of 2000, before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli.) 1. The defeated defendants are the appellants herein. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit, in O.S.No.1821 of 1990, before the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession with future profits. 3. After contest, the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, by Judgment and Decree, dated 31.01.2000, decreed the suit. 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, the defendants preferred an appeal, in A.S.No.76 of 2000, before the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 5. After contest,...
Tag this Judgment!Anusuyamma and Others Vs. Srinivasa Reddy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur in I.A.No.254 of 2013 in O.S.No.47 of 2012.) 1. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. Aggrieved against the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur in I.A.No.254 of 2013 in O.S.No.47 of 2012 in rejecting the application filed to amend the plaint, this civil revision petition has been filed. 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: (i) The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2012 to declare their title over the suit properties, to direct the respondents/defendants to deliver possession and to declare the sale deeds as null and void. Pending suit, they also filed I.A.No.254 of 2013 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the plaint. (ii) The respondents/defendants...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Mahalingam Mudali Vs. The State Express Transport Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the terminal benefits amount payable to the Petitioner including 18% interest for the belated payment of Provident Fund amount and Gratuity amount from the date of his retirement to the date of actual payment made to him and all other attendant benefits to him within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. 'A retired Government official is sensitive to delay in drawing monetary benefits. And to avoid posthumous satisfaction of the pecuniary expectation of the superannuated public servant not unusual in Government', it has become necessary to issue directions, in several cases for early payment of those dues.---Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of State of Mysore v. C.R. Sheshadri and Ors. reported in 1974-I-LLJ-301 (SC). 2. The petitioner claiming himself to have suffered financially as well as psychologically on account of belated payment of retire...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »