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.
V. Sethuraman Vs. Thallam Rajagopal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2017
(Prayer:Appeal filed under Order XXXVII Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules against the order and decretal order passed in A.No.1406 of 2014 in T.O.S.No.4 of 2006 dated 02.04.2014 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in T.O.S. No.4 of 2006 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The trial is in progress. While so, the petitioner filed Application No.1406 of 2014 praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of the appellant herein on the ground that the appellant was then aged about 84 years and unable to move to the Court. The said petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and there is no representation for the respondents, though their names have been printed in the cause list and the private notice sent to them have been served. 3.It is seen from the re...
A.G. Sekaran Vs. M/s. Essaargee Fibro Industries and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.358 of 2009 dated 03.05.2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court - V, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2006 made in O.S.No.1406 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the XI Asst. Judge of City Civil Court at Chennai.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2010 passed in A.S.No.358 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge, FTC-V Chennai reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2006 made in O.S.No.1406 of 2003 on the file of the 11th Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 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 suit filed by the appellant inspite of his giving up his claim against the partnership Firm, the 1st defendant in ...
A. Vasantha Vs. R. Balasubramanian and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the II Additional Subordinate Judge of Salem dated 25.02.2011 and made in A.S.No.81 of 2010 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif of Salem dated 11.06.2010 and made in O.S.No.999 of 2008.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff impugning the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2011 made in A.S.No.81 of 2010 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2010 made in O.S.No.999 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The declaration has been sought for with reference to the proceedings of the second defendant dated 02.12.2005 as void and unenforceable and contrary to natural justice as it is based on the first defendant notarized affidavit ...
Asera Shelters and Investments Ltd. Represented by Managing Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2017
(Prayer: Plaint filed Under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S. Rules R/w Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code) 1. The suit has been filed for the following reliefs :- a. directing the defendant to execute and register necessary Sale Deed, for the Property being land and building, land of a total extent of 2217 sq. ft. (2186 sq. ft as per Patta), comprised in Survey No.797/3, bearing Door No.9, Gengu Reddy Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 more clearly described in the Schedule hereunder, in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving the balance Sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/- within the time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and failing which direct execution of such Sale Deed by an officer of this Hon'ble Court, nominated for the said purpose; b. for a Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants or any one acting under him from in any manner, dealing, alienating, encumbering the property being an extent of 2217 sq. ft. (2186 sq. ft as per Patta), com...
Ravichandran Vs. State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Vallio ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-03-2017
(Prayer: Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5273 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, dated 25.10.2016 and set aside the same and pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as to the circumstances to this case.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed praying to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5273 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, dated 25.10.2016 and set aside the same. 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are as under:- The case was registered in Crime No.288 of 2016 on 16.09.2016, for the offence under Section 379 of IPC., r/w Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, against the petitioner herein and three others by the respondent Police. The FIR reveals the fact that on 16.09.2016 at about 5.00 p.m., a Tempo [TATA 407 Mini Lorry] bea...
U. Joseph Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpor ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-03-2017
(Prayer: in W.P.(MD) 6902/2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.02.2012 in his reference Tha.A.Po.Ka./TAS/D3/1087AA and the order dated 28.03.2012 in his reference No.Tha.A.Po.Ka./KUMBA/PUMA/E2/155 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as a Driver in the Transport Corporation till the date of superannuation on 31.05.2015 and to pay back wages for the period from 01.04.2012 to till date and to continue to pay salary every month. Prayer in W.P.(MD) 23615/2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the respondents in imposing a recovery of Rs.98,000/- on the petitioner towards uneffected increment cut and recovering the said amount from his terminal benefits as illegal, arbitrary and ...
Sriraj Steels (P) Ltd. Rep. By its Director Mr.S.Sridharan, Pondicherr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2017
(Prayer : The Civil Suit filed Under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order IV Rule of the Original Side Rules praying for the following reliefs a. directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.39,65,619/- (Rupees Thirty Nine lakhs sixty five thousand six hundred and nineteen only) together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs.31,55,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation. b. directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages, for the mental agony caused to the plaintiff due to inordinate delay and unjustified rejection of the claim and c. Cost of this suit.) 1. The Suit filed for a direction directing the defendant insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.39,65,619/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs.31,55,000/- from the date of filing this suit till the date of realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages for mental agony caused to the plaintiff for delay in rejection of the claim and for costs. 2. The P...
Venkatesan and Others Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Cr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2017
(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., by the appellants against the judgment in S.C.No.12 of 2001 dated 24.03.2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases at Poonamallee, Chennai.) Common Judgement: S. Nagamuthu.J. 1. The appellants in Crl.A.No.246 of 2014 are the accused 2 to 5, 7 and 9; the appellant in Crl.A.No.252 of 2014 is the 8th accused; the appellant in Crl.A.no.253 of 2014 is the 6th accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.304 of 2014 is the 1st accused in S.C.No.12 of 2001 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Chennai at Poonamallee. They stood charged for various offences as detailed below:- ad>Charge No.AccusedSection of law1A.1120(B) I.P.C.,2A.2120(B), 148, 452, 398 332 r/w 149, 309 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.3A.3120(B), 148, 452, 332, 333, 307, 302, 398 r/w 149, 332 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C.4A.4120(B), 148, 452, 332, 307, 333, 332 r/w 1...
Athilakshmi Vs. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by its Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's sister's son, Arun @ Kozhibody Arun, son of Kumar, aged about 23 years, presently lodged in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, vide detention order, dated 13.7.2016, on the file of the second respondent herein, made in memo No.689/BCDFGISSSV/2016, quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this court and to set him at liberty.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the Aunt of the detenu, namely, Arun @ Kozhibody Arun, aged about 23 years, son of Kumar, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Detention Order No.689/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 13.07.2016, passed by the second respondent herein, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber L...
Tinagaran Puvanasan Vs. State Rep. by the Commissioner of Police, Coim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 1st respondent herein to produce the petitioner's wife Vishnupriya, who is now illegally detained by the 3rd and 4th respondents before this Court and set her at liberty.) T. Mathivanan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M.A.Gouthaman, learned counsel on record for the third respondent and Mr.S.Mohanasundararajan, learned counsel on record for the fourth respondent. 2. In pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2017, this petition is listed today for hearing. In the order dated 31.01.2017, the detenue was directed to be kept in Dhanam Ladies Hostel, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 and the Inspector of Police, Egmore Police Station, Chennai 600 008 as well as the jurisdictional Deput...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »