Chennai Court February 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.
N. Singaram and Another Vs. K. Subramaniam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking direction for tracing out their case records in O.S.No.46 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur and for a direction to dispose of the suit within a time frame.) Order: 1. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be that even after disposal of CMA.No.9 of 2008, the suit has not progressed for want of records from the Principal Sub Court, Tirupur to the Trial Court, viz., District Munsif Court, Tirupur. Accordingly, stating that for want of records, the suit has not proceeded further, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition invoking 227 of the Constitution of India to give a direction to the courts below to trace the case records and to fix a time frame so as to conclude suit by that time. 2. Considering the facts, as seen from the typed set of papers that the suit in the Trial Court is being adjourned for want of records, direction is given to the Principal District Judge, Tirupu...
S. Murugan Vs. Rasu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the decreetal order dated 02.11.2016 made in I.A.No.223 of 2015 in O.S.No.29 of 2013 on the file of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam.) 1. On the plea that with reference to the extent available in the suit Survey Number as well as joint patta of the parties concerned, the revenue records have to be amended, the plaintiff has moved an application before the Trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) Section 151 C.P.C for impleading the brother of the defendant and another person and also the government officials. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the defendant. 3. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the proposed parties are also attempting to interfere with the enjoyment of the suit property. As such, it is also not the case of the plaintiff that the proposed parties have illegally encroached into any portion of the suit property. Therefore, it is ...
Cross Mary @ Mary Vs. Azhagudurai Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2010 in A.S.No.196 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2005 in O.S.No.519 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.) 1. In this second appeal, the defendant has impugned the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2010 made in A.S.No.196 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2005 made in O.S.No.519 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of money on the basis of the promissory note. 3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him on 06.03.2002 and in evidence thereof, executed a promissory note in his favour promising to repay the above said amount wi...
The Management of Foundation Garments Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent relating to the issue of Government Order in G.O. (D) No.1119 dated 30.12.2002 and quash the same.) 1. The Management of Foundation Garments Private Ltd. (for brevity the Management ) has filed the present writ petition challenging G.O. (D) No.1119, Labour and Employment Department dated 30.12.2002 passed by the respondent under Section 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity the ID Act ), directing the Inspector of Labour-II, Chennai, to file a complaint against the Management for an offence punishable under Section 25-O of the ID Act. 2. Heard Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management and Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the Management contended that the impugned order dated 30.12.2002 has be...
M. Velmurugan and Another Vs. Union of India Rep by Government of Pudu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Prayer in W.P(MD)No.31798 of 2015: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the file of the third respondent dated 28.09.2015 bearing in No.P.E.C/E7/Regularization/2015/No.3035 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to fill up the SC vacancy for the post of Helper in the third respondent's college as per the 2005 notification dated 01.12.2005 in No.693 info/ADVT/2005-2006 and 2008 notification dated 13.03.2008 in No.P.E.C/Est.Sec.4/Employment/2008 by following the communal reservation. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.16816 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to fill up the SC vacancy for the post of Helper in the third respondent's college as per the 2005 notification dated 01.12.2005 in No.693 info/ADVT/2005-2006 and 2008 notification dated 13.03.200...
M. Shanmuganandam Vs. K. Kanniappa Chettiar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer:- This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order II Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules for the reliefs as stated therein.) Judgement: 1. This civil suit had been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendants:- a. granting specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 3.8.2007 entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants or in the alternative directing the Defendants to return the advance amount of Rs.26,40,000/- to the Plaintiff with interest 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation. b.granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in favour of any third party. C. directing the Defendants to pay the costs of the suit. 2. The Defendants are the owners of the suit property. One P.Anand, son-in-law of the Defendants is the childhood friend of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was introduced to the Defendants by the said P.Anand, who had ...
K.V. Raman Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS after calling for the concerned records from the 1st respondent, quash the award passed by the 1st Respondent Tribunal dated 24.01.2011 in I.D.No.10 of 2010 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent Bank to release the stagnation increment to K.V.Raman, being the concerned workman in the dispute, along with the arrears of wages from the date the same is entitled under the IV Bipartite Settlement along with 18% per annum.) 1. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Bank as a Stenographer in the year 1977 and worked till 1982. Thereafter, he was redesignated as a Clerk and posted to the Divisional Office, Erode in the year 1983. Subsequently, after passing promotion examinations, he was posted as an Officer in which position, he worked till the year 1987. He was subsequently promoted as an officer on 01.11.198...
Muniyandi and Others Vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Roshani P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Criminal appeals preferred under Sections 374 and 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C., against the judgment, dated 05.04.2016, passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Thindivanam, in S.C.No.324 of 2014.) Common Judgment: S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.284 of 2016 are the accused Nos.1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 13, 15, 28, 29, 34, 36 and 26 in S.C.No.324 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. Including these appellants, there were a total number of 50 accused in the case. By judgment dated 5.4.2016, the trial Court convicted the appellants in Crl.A.No.284 of 2016 and sentenced them accordingly, as detailed below: Sl.NoRank of accusedConvictionsentence1.A1, A9, A10, A11, A12, A16 and A17U/s.302 IPCImprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,500/-, each, in default, two months simple imprisonment.2.A13, A15, A16, A28, A29, A34, A36U/s.324 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.2,500/-, each, in default, two months simple im...
A. Kuberan Vs. The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, Villupuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent herein relating to the notice dated 15.5.2003 and the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3988/2003/A2 dated 22.5.2003 relating to the property tax Assessment Nos.9421 to 9434 and 9471 and quash the same and forbear the respondent from demanding, collecting or seeking to enforce the demand for property tax which has become time-barred by operation of law.) 1. Challenging the distraint proceedings initiated by Villupuram Municipality, this Writ Petition has been preferred. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as under: a. A.Kuberan (petitioner herein) is the owner of a property, a residential building, bearing Door No.1, Chairman Govindaraj Street (line houses) in Villupuram falling within the limits of Villupuram Municipality. There are 14 distinct residential portions in the said building, which have been individually asses...
C. Ravi Vs. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records relating to the notification of the third respondent dt. NIL, published in The New Indian Express , Chennai Edition dt. 19.05.2013 for allotment of flats in Nolambur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, quash the same in so far as it fails to allot one flat to the petitioner @ Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft. and for a consequential direction directing the respondents to allot one flat to the petitioner in Nolambur Village, Thiruvallur District.) The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows: 1. The petitioner was allotted with flat No.1-TE in the 3rd floor in Mogappair Scheme-I measuring an extent of 842 sq.ft, by an allotment letter, dated 31.01.2007. The cost of the said flat was fixed at Rs.25,26,000/-. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.10,10,400/-. When the petitioner was waiting for execution of the sale deed, by a letter ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »