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.
Singapore Reality Pvt. Limited. Rep. by its Director Yeo Boon Kwang Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner's property at Siruseri on payment of applicable charges by the petitioner.) 1. The present criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner's property at Siruseri. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding reached between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the petitioner, the property measuring to an extent of 104.77 acres was allotted to the petitioner by State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) vide two sale deeds dated 06.05.2004 and 16.12.2004, for the purpose of development of IT park. Thereafter, the same was in possession of the petitioner. While so, on 24.04.2016, the third respondent, who is the owner of M/s.Easwari Electronic Pvt. Limited along with 15 persons and JCB, trespassed into the said prope...
Thilakam and Others Vs. Radhakrishan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: C.R.P.(PD)No.381 of 2017: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal orders dated 03.01.2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore passed in I.A.No.808 of 2016 in O.S.No.127 of 2014. C.R.P.(PD)No.382 of 2017:This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal orders dated 03.01.2017 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore passed in I.A.No.809 of 2016 in O.S.No.127 of 2014.) 1. The petitioners/defendants moved an application to re-open plaintiffs evidence and recall PW1 for further cross examination on the footing that on account of inadvertence, certain questions were omitted to be put to PW1 during the cross examination. The same was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff. 2. The Trial Court on a consideration of the case of both parties, found that no proper and valid reason has been given by the defendants to recall PW1. It was also found by the Trial Court that the application was moved by t...
K. Sivakumar Vs. Y. Neeraja
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 22.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.719 of 2007 and 718 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC IV), Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.7183 of 1998 on the file of the VI Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Challenge in the second appeals are made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.719 of 2007 and 718 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC IV), Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.7183 of 1998 on the file of the VI Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The second appeals have been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeals:- "Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in dismissing the...
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
C.V. Karthikeyan, J. 1. This application has been filed by the Plaintiff to permit them to adduce documents as mentioned in the Annexure-A to the Judges's Summons as secondary evidence. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it had been stated that the suit had been filed for groundless threat of legal proceedings and for other consequential reliefs against the respondents/ Defendants. It had been stated that at the time of filing of the suit, the Applicant had filed the copies of annual reports for the years 1985-86 and 1989-90, copies of the sales promotional material of LOTTEE CARAMILK and LOTTE ECLAIRS, copy of the article about Parrys Confectionery between 1914 and 1994 proving use of the marks Caramilk and Eclairs since 1980, copy of the extracts from Diary of Parrys Confectionery Limited (1996), copy of the invoices bearing the mark CARAMILK and ECLAIRS and copies of the wrappers of Specimen of ITC's Candyman Choco Double Eclairs pouch containing broken eclair...
City Tech by its Sole Proprietor David V.Antony, Mumbai Vs. The Owner' ...
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 read with Order 42 Rule 2 of the Admiralty Rules, for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit had been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:- a. for a sum of Rs.2,20,310/- with interest of Rs.69,342/- at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of invoice till the date of plaint and for subsequent interest till the date of realisation. b. for arrest and sale of the Defendant Vessel MV ASHA PRESTIGE with engines, tackles, cranes, derricks, machinery and other paraphernalia and other articles on board the said Vessel in as is where is condition, presently lying in the Indian waters at the port of Chennai and for adjusting the proceeds of the sale towards the suit claim, interest and costs. c. for direction to adjust the sale proceeds of the Defendant Vessel MV ASHA PRESTIGE against the suit claim as well as for actual cost of repatriation with i...
K.M. Balasubramanian Vs. C. Loganathan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 06.11.2015 made in E.A.No.136 of 2009 in E.A.No.277 of 2009 in E.P.No.292 of 2006 in O.S.No.656 of 2002 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.) 1. Challenging the dismissal of the application in E.A.No.136 of 2009, filed under Section 47 and 151 CPC, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 2. The first respondent herein as a plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.656 of 2002 against the revision petitioner herein for recovery of money due on a promissory note. The said suit was decreed exparte. At the time of filing the suit, the property was attached before judgment and after the suit was decreed, an execution petition was filed in E.P.No.292 of 2006 in O.S.No.656 of 2002 for recovery of amount in which the property was sold in Court auction. The second respondent herein was the auction purchaser and he filed the application for deli...
C. Bangaru Rajan Vs. The Special Commissioner and Secretary, Land and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 03.06.2003.) 1. A rank encroacher, who is admittedly in occupation of around 3 acres of Government land, has been making every possible attempt to perfect his possession and thwart every attempt by the Government to evict him. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in occupation of 3 acres of land in Survey No.62/2, Patchur Village, Tirupathur Taluk, Vellore District. He had filed a suit in O.S. No.949 of 1989 before the District Munsif Court, Tirupathur, for an order of interim injunction restraining the authorities from evicting him. According to him, the said suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed in A.S. No.37 of 1998 by the Sub-Court, Tirupathur. It is also his contention that the panchayat has passed a resolution dated 04.01.1977 in his favour stating that they have no objection for grant of patta to him. O...
RAP MFRS' Employees Welfare Union, Rep. by General Manager, Muthusamy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.5831 of 2003 on the file of this Court.) 1. The appellant Union seeks to propagate the case of two of the employees in respect of the dispute with the Management / the second respondent. There has been chequered history to the industrial relationship between the workers' union and the management and a memorandum of settlement was executed on 22.04.1997. But, apparently, this could not resolve the disputes, as there were even contract labourers engaged for the factory of the second respondent and some employees were dismissed on 03.03.2000. The Labour Officer, Krishnagiri, took up this matter which was followed up by Thiru.A.Ramalingam, the then Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, taking up the conciliation proceedings. On 11.09.2000, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workmen and it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the terms of...
Thangammal Vs. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. There is any amount of criticism made in the manner in which the learned Single Judge has rendered Judgment in the Writ Petition. We are refraining ourselves from recording the details of the said criticism. However, with a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether proper consideration has been bestowed by the learned single Judge, we went through the Judgment rendered entirely on our own and in an independent manner. We find, that the criticism made against the manner in which the case was handled and Judgment was rendered, are not without any merit. We have only avoided to refer to the criticism and recording our findings thereon, as we do not want the same to be form part of record of this Court. 2. Ends of justice, in our considered opinion would be better served, if we set aside the Judgment of the learned single Judge and restore the Writ Petition, so that both sides will have a fair and equitable chance to address all the issues before the learned sing...
Kandasamy Vs. Rangasamy Pillai (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi made in a.S.No.84 of 2004 dated 30.10.2010 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Second Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi, made in O.S.No.963 of 1997 dated 20.04.2004.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 made in A.S.No.84 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2004 made in O.S.No.963 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal. "Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below in dismissing the suit laid by the plaintiff are based upon the perverse findings and misdirected against the evidence on record?" 3....
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »