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.
Naina Mohammed and Others Vs. Mohammed Labbai Gani
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.5 of 1998, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, dated 26.06.1998, reversing the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, in O.S.No.409 of 1991, dated 24.11.1997.) 1. The defeated defendants are the appellants herein. 2. The respondent / plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.409 of 1991, before the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, for the relief of declaration of title to the suit property, recovery of possession and also for mesne profits. 3. After contest, the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, by Judgment and Decree, dated 24.11.1997, dismissed the suit with costs. 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, the respondent / plaintiff preferred an appeal, in A.S.No. 5 of 1998, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai. 5. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and docu...
A. Valliammai Vs. Karuppaya and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint filed in O.S.No.31 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif, Perambalur.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first defendant in OS No.31 of 2014 on the file of District Munsif Court, Perambalur to strike off the plaint filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, with exemplary costs. 2. The brief facts of the case would run thus: (i) It is stated by the revision petitioner/first defendant that she owns ancestral property at Paravai village and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same from 1939 onwards. According to her, her grand parents executed the settlement deed in 1939 in favour of her parents, who in turn, had executed a sale deed in her favour. Accordingly, she along with her husband has been in peaceful possession of the property till 1983, when the father of the first respondent/plaintiff trespassed into the same and drove them away. Hence, her husba...
K.N. Palaniappan, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Alenke PL Industries Vs. V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25(1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2015 made in R.C.A.No.30/2013 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore (Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirming the fair and final order dated 04.07.2013 made in R.C.O.P.No.95/2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore (Rent Controller).) 1. The revision petitioner/tenant having lost the battle before the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2015 made in R.C.A.No.30/2013 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore (Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirming the fair and final order dated 04.07.2013 made in R.C.O.P.No.95/2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore (Rent Controller). 2. The learned couns...
K. Viswanathan Vs. A. Ramesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.10.2010 made in I.A.No.61 of 2008 in Unnumbered A.S.No.... of 2010, on the file of the District Judge, Thiruvannamalai.) 1. The appellant is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order in I.A.No.61 of 2008 in A.S.No.Nil of 2008 in O.S.No.388 of 2008, dated 08.10.2010 on the file of the District Judge, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the suit schedule property is belongs to the defendant, who is the respondent herein and the appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent/defendant has agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff and hence on 07.04.2003 executed and registered sale agreement in favour of the appellant/plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit schedule of property for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, on the same day the appellant/plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance and the...
K. Sekar and Others Vs. State represented by its Secretary, Department ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.4 in Mu.Mu.No.6931/a1/2011 dated 02.09.2013 and quash the same as unconstitutional and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of their appointment.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certioararified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.4 in Mu.Mu.No.6931/a1/2011 dated 02.09.2013 and quash the same as unconstitutional and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of their appointment. 2. The case of the petitioners are that they were appointed temporarily in Schools under the third respondent jurisdiction by the Parent Teachers Association. The petitioners 1 to 5 were appointed as Sweepers and the 6th petitioner was appointed as Of...
K.M. Subramaniam Vs. Parvathiammal (died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 09.19.2006 made in O.S.No.19 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Court, Vellore District, Vellore.) 1. The 2nd plaintiff in OS No 19 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Court, Vellore, a suit for partition, or for an alternative relief of declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the 2nd plaintiff, is the appellant. 2. According to the plaintiffs the suit properties belonged to 1st plaintiff and first defendant who are brothers. The 2nd plaintiff happens to be the son of the 1st defendant. The defendants 2 to 7 are daughters and 8th defendant, the wife of the first defendant. The first plaintiff and second defendant claimed that the suit properties belonged to the joint family consisting of the 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant and there had been...
Sundarambal Vs. M.M. Esabai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed Under Section 100 C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.8/199 dated 17.03.1999 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1998 in O.S.No.306 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Karaikal.) 1. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding against the defendant in the suit for eviction, the present appeal is filed. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and the first defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff paying a monthly rent of Rs.5/- (Rupees five only), since there was default of the payment of rent, quit notice was given on 05.02.1997 terminating the lease agreement and calling upon the defendants to vacate possession after removing the superstructure. Since the defendants did not comply with the demand suit for ejectment. 3. The suit was conte...
Arulraj Vs. Shanthi
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, in A.S.No.43 of 2012, dated 31.10.2012 confirming the decree and judgment of the District Munsif, Thanjavur in O.S.No. 170 of 2010, dated 26.06.2012.) Common Judgment: 1. S.A.(MD)No.424 of 2013 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.43 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.170 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Curt, Thanjavur. 2. S.A.(MD)No.427 of 2013 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.44 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.171 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Curt, Thanjavur. 3. S.A.(MD)No.475 of 2013 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.41 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Cou...
N. Sasikala Vs. The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(Prayer: This Revision is filed under Section 401 r/w 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1267 of 2014 in C.C.No.163 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai, dated 18.05.2015 refusing to discharge the petitioner from the case.) 1. This revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1267 of 2014 in C.C.No.163 of 1996, dated 18.05.2015 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai, refusing to discharge the petitioner from the case. 2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:- The respondent/complainant preferred a complaint under Sections 8(1), 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai stating that the accused company, who were telecasting under logo J.J TV had hired transponder abro...
Mansoor Ali Khan Vs. Bharathi Sharma @ Sneha Sharma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2017
(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 defendant. i) Directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as damages towards Malicious Prosecution and defamation suffered by the plaintiff. ii) To pay the costs of the suit and iii) To grant such further reliefs) 1. The suit is filed for damages towards Malicious Prosecution and defamation suffered by the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows: The plaintiff is a famous Cine Artist and he had two wives and eight children. According to the plaintiff, the defendant who introduced herself as the plaintiff's admirer over telephonic conversation expressed her desire to meet him in person. The plaintiff also obliged the defendant's request to meet her in person as per customary practice. Taking advantage of this, the defendant secretly obtained inform...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »