Chennai Court February 2017 Judgments
Seetha Raman and Others Vs. Kannapiran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
(Prayer in S.A.No.52 of 2008: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 30.08.2007 made in A.S.No.110 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2006 in O.S.No.227 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram. S.A.No.53 of 2008: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 30.08.2007 made in A.S.No.115 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2006 in O.S.No.99 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram.) Common Judgment: 1. The above two second appeals are directed against the judgements of the Lower Appellate Court, one reversing the judgments passed in the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and two dismissing the suit filed for specific performance. 2. The appellants are the plain...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai and Another Vs. New Kashmir A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
(Prayers: A.S.No.963 of 2008: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the Decree and Judgment passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 24.06.2008 in O.S.No.1862 of 2007. A.S.No.485 of 2011: This appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code against the against the Judgment and decree dated 24.06.2008 passed by the Hon'ble VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.1862 of 2007.) Common Judgment: 1. The above appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.1862 of 2007 dated 24.06.2008. The suit in O.S.No.1862 of 2007 was filed by the appellant in A.S.No.963 of 2008 seeking a money decree for a sum of Rs.6,86,613/- with interest at 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.5,53,720/-. 2. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.5,53,720/- represents the damages caused to the goods of the plaintiff stored ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Amuthavalli Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by it Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay Grade Pay arrears from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005 as per the petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2016.) 1. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner would aver that her husband, namely S.Sundaram was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher at Municipal Higher Secondary School, Gudiyatham and Vellore District on 06.12.1966 and he was conferred with the benefit of Selection Grade on 05.12.1976 and he was promoted as Tamil Pandit and awarded Special Grade on 27.02.1980 and he retired from service on 30.06.2002 and his last drawn pay was Rs.8,500/-. The petitioner would further submit that as per official memorandum dated 28.01.2013 in F.No.38/37/08-PandPW(A), Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Grade Pay is to be taken into co...
Tag this Judgment!Sathish @ Sathishkumar and Another Vs. State Rep. by its the Station H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
(Prayer:-Criminal original petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.10 of 2016 on the file of the Station House Officer, Lawspet Police Station, Puducherry.) Bail petition. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 364, 302, 404, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 3. Petitioners are A-4 and A-5 in this case. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even taking the allegations as such, neither an offence under Section 364 IPC nor an offence under Section 302 of IPC nor an offence under Section 404 IPC is attracted towards the petitioners. If at all, it could be only under Section 201 IPC. It would be screening of the offence, Of course, in connection with a murder case. Even then it will not be a capital offence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court below has not applied the relevant legal provisions correctly. As per law, the petitioners are entitled to be granted bail. But they were denied bail. Their detention ...
Tag this Judgment!Meenambal and Others Vs. The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to disburse the payment relating to gratuity, surrender leave salary i.e. Earned leave balance as on 30.06.2013, earned leave encashment, social welfare fund, IRTT amount and other monetary benefits relating to the deceased Shenreddy to the petitioners by calculating DA eligible as per newly implemented scheme with interest at 12% per annum with effect from 01.07.2013 within stipulated time.) 1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The 1st petitioner's husband Shenreddy joined the service as a Driver in the respondent Corporation on 22.11.1986 and was promoted as Selection Grade Driver and retired from service on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that though her husband has retired as early as on 30.06.2013, the retiral/terminal benefits such as gratuity,...
Tag this Judgment!A. Satheesh Kumar Vs. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records made in impugned order in Na.Ka.M1/17065/2016 dated Nil February 2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Record Clerk in the office of the Adi Dravidar and ST Welfare Office, Villupuram District to secure the ends of justice.) 1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the son of one Ammavasi, who was employed as a Night Watchman in the Government Adi Dravidar Students Hostel and he died in harness on 08.11.2005 and on account of the same, the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 07.02.2017 as Record Clerk and the petitioner has also jointed t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawari Bai Vs. B.C. Sudhakar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
(Prayer: The suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Madras read with Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for the following reliefs:- (a) To cancel the Decree dated 16.09.2008 made in O.S.No.5992 of 2007, on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as the same was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and collusion; (b) For declaration declaring the Sale Deed dated 27.02.2012, registered as Document No.179 of 2012 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Sowcarpet, Chennai, executed by the first defendant in favour of the 7th defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; (c) For the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, servants, agents or anybody claiming under them from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; and (d) Award the costs of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed to cancel the Decree dated 16.09.2...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindran Vs. Danton Shanmugam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
(Prayer: This appeal is filed Under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2013 and made in O.S.No.68 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge at Karaikal.) 1. The plaintiff whose suit for specific performance or in the alternative for refund of advance was decreed for the alternative relief, is the appellant. Specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 24/09/2007 was sought for by the plaintiff. 2. According to the plaintiff the 1st defendant agreed to sell an extent of 42 Ares 35 centiares equivalent to 316 kuzhies and 21/64 veesams at the rate of Rs. 3,550/- per kuzhie. The said agreement was reduced to writing. The plaintiff had paid an advance of Rs. 5 lakhs on the date of the agreement out of the total consideration of Rs.11,22,965/-. A period of 15 days was fixed for performance of the agreement. According to the plaintiff, as per the agreement, the original sale deed is to be produced by the defendant before e...
Tag this Judgment!Vetrivel Explosives Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Direc ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the second respondent in R.C.No.D2/23317/2016, dated 17.12.2016 and to quash the same as illegal.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 17.12.2016 cancelling the No Objection Certificate issued under the Explosives Act, 1884. 2. The case of the Petitioner, in short, is as follows: The Petitioner/Company is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and export of explosives for industrial purposes permitted under the Explosives Act, 1884. The Petitioner/company established a factory in Murangampatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. The said factory premises was established after obtaining all statutory permissions and clearances as required under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the rules made thereunder. The sec...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesan Vs. K. Sampoornam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 made in A.S.No.38 of 2013 and Cross Appeal No.38 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2012 made in O.S.No.401 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.) 1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is made by the plaintiff against the Judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 made in A.S.No.38 of 2013 and Cross Appeal No.38 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2012 made in O.S.No.401 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal: (i) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in law in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation when the suit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »