Chennai Court January 2017 Judgments
C. Kuppusamy Vs. C. Baby and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order dated 18.07.2013 made in I.A.No.306 of 2013 in O.S.No.176 of 2012, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Erode.) 1. This revision petition arises out of an order dated 18.07.2013 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode in I.A.No.306 of 2013 in O.S.No.176 of 2012 pending on the file of the above said Court. The above said suit came to be filed by C.Baby, the first respondent herein, against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 for praying partition of the properties and further relief to render a true and complete account of business of late M.Chenniappan and to pay cost. 2. The revision petitioner/first defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.306 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the ground that an earlier suit was filed by the same plaintiff, which was suppres...
Tag this Judgment!R. Selvan Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Ant ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-24-2017
(Prayer: Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to impugned order, dated 20.09.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Dindigul in Cr.M.P.No.895 of 2016 in Spl.Case No.4 of 2014, set aside the same and direct the trial Court to defer the cross examination of P.W.3 till L.W.4 and L.W.11 are examined in chief in the interest of justice and fair trial.) 1. The Revision Petitioner herein is an accused in Spl.Case No.4 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Dindigul. While P.W.3 was produced before the Court by prosecution and was examined in chief by the prosecutor and the respondent herein, the Revision Petitioner/accused filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.895 of 2016 on 20.09.2016, under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C, for deferring the cross examination of P.W.3, till L.Ws.4 and 11 are examined in chief and the said petition was dismissed by the trial Court, referring the de...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kannusamy Vs. T. Sumathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2017
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act against the decree and judgment dated 06.06.2015 and made in H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court Judge, Erode.) 1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the fair and decretal order dated 06.06.2015 and made in the matrimonial proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Erode. 2. Heard Mr.S.Chandrasekharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.D.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The appellant herein is none other than the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 25.11.1998 at Naziyanur. While the appellant was pursuing his Bachelor degree in Chemistry, he was put in employment in Indian Air Force. Thereafter, he had completed his M.A Degree and obtained a Diploma in Radio Communication Engineering. On account of his educational qualification, he got promotion and now he h...
Tag this Judgment!Thirupurasundari and Others Vs. V. Gokulakrishnan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2017
(Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule VII of CPC and Rule IV of Original Side Rules praying for judgment and decree (a) directing the defendants 1 and 2 jointly severally pay a sum of Rs.11,98,000/- (Rs.10,00,000/-principal+ Rs.1,98,000/- interest) with further interest calculated at Rs.6000/- per month from the date of the plaint till the date of the payment (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 form alienating or encumbering or otherwise dealing with the property namely, the plot bearing No.AP 450, Thiruvalluvar Kudiyiruppu, Arignar Anna Nagar, Chennai -40 which is morefully described in the schedule and (c ) for the costs of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.11,98,000/- together with further interest calculated at Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of the plain till the date of payment. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows: The first plaintiff is the wife of late K.Balaraman. The plaintiffs 2 and...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishnamurthy and Others Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Reve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2017
P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The circumstances under which this Division Bench came to be constituted for deciding the issues arising in this reference require to be recapitulated, for which, it may be necessary to briefly state the factual matrix. [a] On 24.05.2015, two groups, categorised as "A" party and "B" party, lodged complaints against each other before the Inspector of Police, Gandhikuppam Police Station, based on which, petition enquiries were being conducted in CSR Nos. 74 of 2015 and 75 of 2015. According to the members of "A" party, the land in Survey No.562/2AB measuring 1.38 acres belongs to them and the members of "B" party are contending that the said land belongs to Bharathamatha Temple and were asserting their right to hold the Mahabaratham festival. The police, apprehending a breach of peace, registered an FIR in Cr.No.202 of 2015 and forwarded a report to the Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer for initiating proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C. Based on the report s...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government School Edu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2017
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. The writ appeals have been filed by the Government challenging the interim direction of a learned single Judge directing the respondents therein/ educational authorities to grant temporary approval to the writ petitioners, who have been appointed as Teachers after 15.11.2011, without the possession of TET, for a period of five years and to grant consequential benefits. 2. Some of the writ petitions have been filed by the Teachers who have been appointed prior to or after the issue of G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011 and who have qualified themselves with Teacher Eligibility Test seeking payment of salary for the period from the date of appointment till the date of passing of Teacher Eligibility Test and some of the writ petitions have been filed by the Teachers who have been appointed after the issue of G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011 seeking to approve their appointment and to pay salary. 3. By G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011, t...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnadurai Vs. Karuppannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Salem dated 26.08.2011 in I.A.No.49 of 2010 in I.P.No.44 of 2005.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of dismissal of the Interim Application in IA.No.49/10 in IP.No.44/05 dated 26.08.2011. As the CRP is filed under the Article 227 of Constitution of India, this court by using the power of superintendence, subjects the grounds raised in the CRP for analysis. 2. The present petition is filed based on the question of fact. However, the supervisory Jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under the Article 227 of Constitution is confined only to see whether an Inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less of an error of Law. It is also not permissible to a High court on a petition filed under Article 227 of C...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sekar Vs. The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Tirunelveli a ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-23-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and disburse the petitioner's daughter, namely, S.Tamilarasi, educational loan amount of Rs.3,65,000/- based on the Bona fide Certificate, dated 27.09.2016, issued by the Sara Nursing College, Palani Main Road, Manakadavu, Dharapuram, Tirupur District, based on the petitioner representation dated 01.12.2016 within the period stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and disburse educational loan to his daughter, namely, S.Tamilarasi, based on his representation, dated 01.12.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner's daughter joined B.Sc., Nursing course at Sara Nursing College, Palani Main Road, Manakadavu, Dharapuram. The total fee payable to the said course is Rs.3,65,000/- and therefore, the petitioner presented an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sathyanarayana Vs. T.J. Dhanakoti @ Koti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 09.07.2013 made in I.A.No.167 of 2012 in O.S.No.167 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur.) 1. The defendant in O.S.No.167 of 2000 is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order of dismissal in I.A.No.167 of 2012 in O.S.No.167 of 2000, dated 09.07.2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. 2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that he has filed the suit in O.S.No.167 of 2000 before the learned District Munsif Court, Ambattur for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule of property. 3. The plaintiff has come forward by saying that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 35 years by constructing a house and he has residing there with his wife and children and the docum...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. India Cements Investments Services Limited, Represented by its As ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2017
(Prayer: Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order dated 08.11.2013 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Court Judge, Namakkal in C.A.No.1/13 and to confirm the judgment made in STC.No.823/2010 dated 27.12.2012 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal.) Preamble: 1. The Appellant/Respondent (Complainant) has filed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 08.11.2013 in C.A.No.1 of 2013 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal. 2. The Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.A.No.1 of 2013, on 08.11.2013, at paragraph 11, had, among other things, observed to the effect that '... P.W.1 had deposed in his cross examination (before the trial Court) that he had not filed the Contract Note and that he does not know ordinarily when shares were purchased, the account details were...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »