Chennai Court February 2017 Judgments
D. Kesavan Vs. D. Anitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking (i) to withdraw HMOP No.124 of 2015 pending on the file of the Sub Court Krishnagiri and to transfer the same to the I Additional Family Court, Chennai to be tried along with O.P.No.3212 of 2015 and (ii) to withdraw OP No.3212 of 2015 pending on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai and to transfer the same to the file of Sub Court, Krishnagiri, to be tried along with HMOP No.124 of 2015.) Common Order: 1. Tr.C.M.P.No.191 of 2016 has been filed by the husband seeking to withdraw HMOP No.124 of 2015 filed by the wife and pending before the Sub Court, Krishnagiri and to transfer the same to the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai to be tried along with O.P.No.3212 of 2015 filed by him. Tr.C.M.P.No.193 of 2016 has been filed by the wife seeking to withdraw OP No.3212 of 2015 filed by the husband and pending before the I Additional Family Court, Chennai and ...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmigu Someswarar Sivanadiyargal Thirukutam Trust, Rep.by its Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari in I.A.No.151 of 2014 in O.S.No.42 of 2011.) 1. The third party, who proposed to be the fifth defendant, was denied the right of impleadment. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 2. The revision petitioner, who claims to be the Secretary of Arulmigu Someswarar Sivanadiyargal Thirukutam Trust, which is a registered trust has filed an application to implead itself as a party to the suit. According to him, the Trust has been involved in temple functions and other activities of the temples in and around Sankari. The respondents 1 to 8/plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking declaration of title and for a permanent injunction. According to the petitioner, the suit property was used by the temple devotees and by the above mentioned trust for all the temple functions for preparing prasadams and ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chandra Prabha Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.320/A-2/2015 dated 6.7.15 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T.Assistant (Mathematics) w.e.f.16.6.2011 without reference to Teacher Eligibility Test in conformity with the judgement rendered by the Honourable Court in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and other Vs.Union of India and others reported in (2014) 4 MLJ 486 (SC). ) Nisha Banu, J. The above Writ Petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as B.T.Assistant (Mathematics) w.e.f.16.6.2011 by the fourth respondent school on the ground that she did not possess the teacher eligibility test (in short 'TET'). 2. The case of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited, Through its Power Agent, Ajay As ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 and Order XLI, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.86 of 2004 dated 22.11.2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This appeal suit has been filed by the plaintiff as against the judgment and decree of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai dated 10.11.2006 in O.s.No.86 of 2004, dismissing the suit for recovery of amount and decreeing the counter claim in part with cost. 2. The plaint averments are as follows: 2.1. The plaintiff is a limited Company engaged in undertaking civil works relating to laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of pipe lines. This suit has been filed by the power agent of the company. The first defendant is a partnership firm, wherein, the defendants 2 to 4 are partners. The contract was concluded as between the plaintiff's company and TWAD board of Tamil Nadu...
Tag this Judgment!Neela and Others Vs. Raja alias Rajapan
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 27.01.2011 passed in A.S.No.55/2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2010 passed in O.S.No.383 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.) 1. The defendants 4, 14 to 18, in this second appeal, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2011 made in A.S.No.55/2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2010 made in O.S.No.383 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal "Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff had proved to be the adopted son of Arumuga Naicker...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Priya Vs. Dr. Karthikeyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Attur in I.A.No.112 of 2014 in HMOP No.111 of 2014.) 1. The wife, in a matrimonial dispute, is the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the court below in dismissing the application filed by her under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend para No.7 by including Para Nos.VII A to D in the HMOP No.111 of 2014 filed for divorce as against the respondent/husband, the present revision has been preferred. 2. The petitioner/wife filed HMOP No.111 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Attur against the respondent/husband seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. Pending HMOP, the petitioner filed I.A.No.428 of 2013 seeking to amend the petition by incorporating para Nos.VII A to D by setting out various allegations agai...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rajmanohar and Others Vs. V. Mohamed Sadiq Rep.by his Power of Atto ...
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 22.02.2011 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvarur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudi.) 1. In this second appeal, the plaintiffs have impugned the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvarur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudi. 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 first appellate court in dismissing the suit laid by the plaintiffs including the alternative prayer for refund of advance amount are based upon perverse findings and conclusions and misdirected against the ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kaja Nijamudden Vs. A. Rajamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 20th July 2009 in O.S.No.806 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore.) 1. The defendant who suffered a decree for specific performance is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale on 15/12/2006 agreeing to convey the suit property for consideration of Rs. 6,35,000/-. An advance of Rs.35,000/- was paid on the date of the agreement and a period of four months was fixed for performance of the agreement. The time fixed under the agreement was extended up to 15/06/2007 on 02/04/2007 and there was a further extension up to 15/08/2007. Since the defendant did not execute the sale deed, despite demands made by the plaintiff, a legal notice came to be issued on 06/08/2007 by the plaintiff. The defendant sent a reply on 09/08/2007 claiming that time was the essence...
Tag this Judgment!Nachimuthu Vs. Rengasamy and Other
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 19.02.2010 in A.S.No.113 of 2005 and A.S.No.112 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2005 in O.S.No.289 of 2003 and 263 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.) S. A.No.712 of 2011 1. Challenge, in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2010 passed in A.S.No.113 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.289 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal. S. A.No.713 of 2011 Challenge, in this second appeal is made by the 1st defendant/plaintiff in O.S.No.289 of 2003 against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2010 passed in A.S.No.112 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2005 passed in O.S.N...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Edison Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2017
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in letter No.17369/UD-VI(I)/2016-1, dated 31.01.2017 in rejecting the petitioner's review petition filed under Town and Country Planning Act as against locking and sealing of the respondents 2 and 3 for the building put up No.4, Lake Area, 7th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34 by quashing the same and consequently forbear the respondents from initiating any coercive action of locking and sealing of the building put up in the aforementioned property.) Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. T.N. Rajagopalan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Mr. Rajasrinivas, learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent and Mr.A.Nagarajan, learned counsel takes notice for the third respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that after obtaining planning...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »