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.
S. Kannan Vs. State Rep. By, Respondent The Inspector Police, Chennima ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2017
Petition for bail. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 419, 468, 471, 447, 420 of IPC and under Sections 18, 18(A), 18(B), 20, 38, 40(1)(c) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (shortly, hereinafter UAP Act) in Crime No.529 of 2015. 3. Petitioner is stated to be a member of Communist Party of India (Maoist). It is banned by the Government. He is alleged to be a terrorist. He was already confined in Prison in connection with Crime No.01 of 2015 offences under Sections 120-B IPC r/w 124-A IPC and 20 of UAP Act. This case has been registered by 'Q' Branch. 4. In connection with the present case, namely, Crime No.529 of 2015, petitioner has been formally arrested on 29.03.2016. Subsequently, he has been produced before the concerned Court on 30.03.2016. Thereafter, his remand period was extended from time to time. When his period of stay in jail neared 90 days, the learned Public Prosecutor sought extension of his remand period by filing a report. Thus, the report has been filed...
Krishnaraj Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet Division ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 31.01.2014 passed in S.C.No.58/2012 on the file of Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court (Sessions Judge, Mahila Court), Thiruppur.) Judgment: 1. The Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court (as an aggrieved person) as against the Judgment dated 31.01.2014 in S.C.No.58 of 2012 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruppur. 2. The Learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruppur, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.58 of 2012 on 31.01.2014, had, among other things, observed that the prosecution had proved the charge levelled against the Appellant/Accused under Section 306 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt, by placing cogent evidences and by examining proper witnesses and filing necessary documents. Viewed in that perspective, the Appellant/Accused was convicted under Section ...
N. Pakthavathsalam Vs. K. Pramila and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2017
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to withdraw the case pending in M.C.No.30 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur and to transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram to be tried along with HMOP No.59 of 2016 pending on its file.) 1. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure [in short 'CPC'] deals with transfer for the purpose of consolidation of proceedings between the same parties, for the sake of convenience. For the purpose of consolidation there are certain conditions to be fulfilled. Particularly, one of the condition is that the contesting parties must be the same and the determination of rights of parties in one suit must be connected with the determination of the parties in another suit. Normally, in matrimonial matters the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties and the social status of the spouses and their behavioural...
D. Vidya Vs. R. Saravanakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Harur in I.A.No.35 of 2016 in HMOP No.95 of 2015.) 1. The petitioner/wife, in a matrimonial dispute has preferred the above revision, aggrieved by the order refusing to frame a preliminary issue to decide the question of maintainability of HMOP No.95 of 2015. 2. The facts of the case would run thus: (i) The respondent/husband has filed the HMOP No.95 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur under Section 12(a)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a declaration declaring that the marriage dated 06.02.2012 that took place between the petitioner and the respondent as nullity and for other reliefs. The main allegation in the HMOP is that the marriage was not consummated and that the wife is suffering from psychiatric disorder. (ii) In I.A.No.35 of 2016 filed by the wife, it is stated that the husband has fi...
M/s. Rahul Foundations rep. by its Proprietor Ravikrishna Kumar Vs. M/ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2017
(Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order 4 Rule 1 of O.S. Rules praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendants. i) for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,77,718.14P due and payable [Rs.16,09,781.14P being the principal outstanding and Rs.10,94,651/- being the interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 25.06.2000 to 30.04.2011 and a sum of Rs.5,73,286/- being the service tax payable, in all, amounting to Rs.32,77,718.14P] with future interest thereon; ii) for the costs of the suit.) 1. The suit is filed for recovery of sum of of Rs.32,77,718.14P due and payable with future interest thereon. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff company are as follows: (i) The plaintiff company is engaged in building contract work from 1995 onwards. The company was awarded a Work Order for putting up a Commercial Project at Rayapettah High Road on 13.11.2006 for the value of Rs.1,17,98,260/- by the defendant. The said work order was finalised and sig...
R. Sudha Vs. Shanmugam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2010 in A.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai, confirming the decree and judgment dated 25.03.2010 in O.S.No.523 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2010 made in A.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai, confirming the decree and judgment dated 25.03.2010 made in O.S.No.523 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for partition. 3. The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant and one Chandra Ammal. The defendants 1 and 2 are their sons. Now, according to the plaintiff, the suit properties are the Joint Hindu Family properties belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants...
I. Margo and Another Vs. The Inspector of Police, CBI (Anti Corruption ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and quash the same.) 1. The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners are the office bearers of a Society registered under the Society Registration Act. The first petitioner is the President of the Society. The 2nd petitioner is the International Representative of the said Society and the name of the society is Reach in the Nilgiris . The Society was registered on 1989 in the office of the District Registrar, Ooty, bearing Registration No.25/89. The main object of the Society is to educate economically backward and downtrodden children and to educate orphan...
K.E. Ghanavelraja Vs. Government of India rep by its Principal Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mamdamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to take strict and stringent action in accordance with law to ensure that respondents 8 to 136 adhere to the terms and conditions of their licenses and consequently ensure that they block web-sites mentioned in the Schedule to the writ petition and other similar websites indulging in online piracy and infringement of copyright pertaining to the film SI-III indulging in piracy and infringement of new films and more particularly prohibit them in territorial jurisdiction of India from exhibiting releasing projecting screening or in any manner providing platforms for downloading the film SI-III which is already censored and slated for release on 9th February 2017.) 1. The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to take strict and stringent action in accordance with law to ensure that re...
The Union of India, rep., by the General Manager, Southern Railway and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2017
(Prayer: Original Petition filed under section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator (second respondent herein), dated 30.07.2009.) 1. This petition has been filed by the Railway Administration challenging the award passed by the Hon'ble Arbitrator, dated 30.07.2009, in the matter of dispute between the first respondent and the Railway Administration arising out of an agreement, dated 10.10.2002. 2. The third petitioner called for tenders for the work of Perambur Repair works in fitter House Tank C-1 to C-4 (4Nos) situated at Filter House located opposite to ICF Higher Secondary School, Ayanavaram. The 1st respondent participated in the said tender and was the lowest bidder. After due negotiations held on 15.07.2002, the petitioners issued the letter of Acceptance dated 18.07.2002 in favour of the first respondent for a total value of Rs.20,35,080/-. 3. The first respondent was allotted the work and the offer quoted by ...
J. Seetharam Gupta Vs. P. Selvaraj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.87 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, by confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2008 made in O.S.No.110 of 2005 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Tambaram.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.87 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2008 made in O.S.No.110 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction. 3. The plaintiffs claim title to the suit property under the sale deed dated 06.02.1998 marked as Ex.A2, which had been executed in favour of their father Palanivel by Bangaru Rajamani. The plaintiffs have also produced the parent title deed marked as Ex.A1, from which, it is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »