Chennai Court February 2017 Judgments
Manickam Vs. Chinnammal and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.4 of 2009, dated 29.04.2010, on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai, concurrent the judgment passed in O.S.No.106 of 2006, dated 05.11.2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai. Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.3 of 2009, dated 29.04.2010, on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai, concurrent the judgment passed in O.S.No.106 of 2006, dated 05.11.2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai.) Common Judgment: 1. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.24 of 2011 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai reversing the judgment and decree passed in the counter claim in O.S.No.106 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai. The Se...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Thiravium and Others Vs. L. Wilfred Raj
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2017
(Prayer: Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.222 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil and quash the same.) Order: 1. This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.222 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Nagercoil. 2. It is averred in the petition that the respondent's wife Tmt.Vimala Rani was admitted in the petitioners' hospital on 16.05.2008 for right hip pain, which was present for five years. After preliminary investigation and treatment, she was suggested right hip replacement surgery as other measures had failed. After getting consent and proper fitness, surgery was performed on 25.05.2008 under anesthesia. During reaming of femur, thigh bone, so as to fit into the joint cavity, fat present in femur got dislodged and resulted in fatt embolism. Fat embolism caused pulmonary embolism finally ending up w...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathambi @ Subramani Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Ti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused [A1] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirupur, Tirupur District, in S.C.No.2 of 2013 dated 08.06.2016.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the 1st Accused in S.C.No.2 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Tirupur, Tirupur District. There were two other accused by name (1) Sakthivel, S/o.Palanisamy and (2) Natraj, S/o.Muthusamy Gounder, who were arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in the said case. The trial court framed as many as seven charges against the accused as detailed below:- Charge NumberCharges framed againstPenal provision under which Charge(s) framed(1)A1 to A3Section 449 of IPC(2)A1 to A3Section 457 of IPC(3)A1Section 302 of IPC(4)A2 and A3Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC(5)A2Section 201 of IPC(6)A1 and A3Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC(7)A1 to A3Section 397 of IPC The trial court, by judgment dated 08.06.2016, convicte...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Kalin Engineering Industries, Represented by its Partner A. Sasi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in G.D Notice 1718/2016-17 dated 07.02.2017 issued by the 1st respondent and wrongly mentioned as 07.02.2016 to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the TNVAT Act and direct the 1st respondent to release the consignments detained on 07.02.2017.) 1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that he does not wish to press the writ petition against respondent nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, respondent nos.2 and 3 are dropped from the array of parties. 2. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondent no.1 (now the sole respondent). Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsels for parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 3. By virtue of this writ petition, challenge is laid to the goods detention...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2017
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/A1 has focussed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 09.12.2016 in Spl.S.C.No.160 of 2015 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Principal Sessions Court, Erode. 3. Earlier, the trial Court found the Petitioner/Appellant/A1 guilty in respect of an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and imposed a punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years, besides imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. In so far as the offences under Section 447 I.P.C. read with 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance, 2014, Section 427 IPC; and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989, the Petitioner/Appellant/A1 was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted of those charges. 4. The Petitioner/Appellant, as an aggrieved person, has p...
Tag this Judgment!Marakkal and Others Vs. S.G. Kannappan(died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure code against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam, dated 08.121995 in A.S.No.59 of 1990 and as modified the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam dated 16.05.1989 in O.S.No.764 of 1983. 1. The appellants are the legal representatives of defendants 3 to 5 in the suit filed for declaration, partition and injunction. To declare that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/2 share in the 'A' schedule property; partition by metes and bounds in the 'A' schedule property and permanent injunction in respect of 'B' schedule property. 2. One Oor Ranga Naikkar had two wives. Through his first wife Marakkal he had a son by name Periya Ranga Naikkar. Through his second wife Palaniakkal, he had a son by name Chinna Nayakkar and daughter by name Palaniammal. During the life time of Oor Ranga Naikkar, the suit property bearing S.No.172, in Periya Koduvari Village, Sathyam...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mahalingam Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District (Rura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to give necessary police protection to the Masi Mahasivarathiri Festival to be celebrated by the petitioner and his community people in Arulmighu Kattu Karuppanasamy Kovil, Maravankulam Village, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District from 24.02.2017 to 26.02.2017 and connected festivities.) 1. The writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to give necessary police protection to the Masi Mahasivarathiri Festival to be celebrated by the petitioner and his community people in Arulmighu Kattu Karuppanasamy Kovil, Maravankulam Village, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District from 24.02.2017 to 26.02.2017 and connected festivities. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 3. The learned couns...
Tag this Judgment!Fariyal Trading as M/s. Miracle, Ladies Hari Dresses and Beauty Parlou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendant. a) Granting a permanent injunction restraining defendant by itself, its servants, relations, agents or anyone claiming through them from offering services of beauty parlour /beauty saloon using the trade mark MIRACLE or by using any other Trade Mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiff registered trade mark MIRACLE or in any manner infringing the plaintiff registered trade mark No.1736011. b) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves, their servant, agent, men (or) anyone claiming through them from offering services of beauty parlour/beauty saloon using Name MIRACLE or similar sounding name in the course of their business and pass off their services using the Trade Name MIRACLE as and passing of services of defendant as services of plaint...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Vimaleswaran Vs. C.P.S. Charumathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal orders dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram in I.A.Nos.508 and 507 of 2014 in HMOP No.320 of 2011.) Common Order: 1. The petitioner/husband in a matrimonial proceedings, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Court below, has preferred these revisions. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of these civil revision petitions would run thus: (i) The petitioner/husband herein filed HMOP No.320 of 2011 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce as against the wife on the ground of cruelty. Pending HMOP, the respondent/wife has filed two applications, viz., I.A.No.508 of 2014 seeking interim maintenance to her and the minor child in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per month and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards litigation expenses and I.A.No.507 of 2014 seeking a direction directing the revis...
Tag this Judgment!Elangovan Vs. Sivasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 made in A.S.No.51 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, at Perambalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2007 made in O.S.No.34 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Ariyalur.) 1. In this second appeal, challenge is made by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 made in A.S.No.51 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Perambalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2007 made in O.S.No.34 of 2005 on the file of the Sub 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, on 14.04.2002, borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and in evidence thereof, executed the suit promissory note promising to repay the said sum with interest on demand.Inasmuch as the defendant failed to honour h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »