Chennai Court February 2017 Judgments
P. Subramani and Others Vs. The Reserve Bank of India, Rep. By its Aut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 18.03.2011 made in M.P.No.3050 of 2010 in E.O.C.C.No.14 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,(E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai.) This revision has been filed against order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,(E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioners under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the criminal case. 2. The fact of the case, in brief, is as follows:- (i) The Revision Petitioners are accused 2,3 and 4 in E.O.C.C.No.14 of 2001, pending on the file of the learned Chief Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai. Earlier, the respondent/Reserve Bank of India, filed a complaint, against the petitioners and other 12 persons, under Section 200 Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 45QA, 58B(4 AAA) and 58E(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Ac...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Nachiappan Vs. S. Nachammai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2017
(Prayer: Original Petition No 642 of 2005 was filed under Sections 222 and 276 of Indian Succession Act, Order XXV r/w R-4 of the High Court (Original side Rules) of 1925 for the grant of letters of Administration. Against this petition a Caveat was filed on 07.10.2005 by the Caveator. As per order of this Court dated 29.03.2011 in O.P.No.642 of 2005, the Original Petition No.642 of 2005 was converted into Testamentary Original Suit No.42 of 2005.) 1. The petition originally filed for the grant of Letters of Administration has been converted as suit in view of the caveat filed by the defendants herein. 2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows: (i) The plaintiff is the son of late Sri.N.Ramanathan Chettiar, who died on 03.12.2002. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 herein are the son and daughters of the said deceased. The deceased Ramanathan Chettiar executed a Will dated 20.9.2002 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Joghee Vs. Susheela
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2017
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order order dated 02.08.2012 made in I.A.No.236 of 2012 in O.S.No.45 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam.) 1. The plaintiff in the suit is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order in I.A.No.236 of 2012 in O.S.No.45 of 2005, dated 02.08.2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam. 2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he has filed the suit in O.S.No.45 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam, for declaration and for permanent injunction. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff further states that he is the absolute owner of the property in 25 cents of land in R.S.No.49/3 (old) and 870/1 (new) of Kakkuchi Revenue Village, situated in Banacombai with specific boundaries East-Property of G.Sivan; West-Road leading to Kgguchi; North-Property of ILK Bhojan, South-Property of R.Li...
Tag this Judgment!Saradha V. Ram (Deceased) and Others Vs. R. Ramabai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2017
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgement and decree dated 18.07.1994 made in O.S.No.1190 of 1987 on the file of the IInd Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 and Order XLI, Rule 1 C.P.C. against the judgement and decree in O.S.No.1572 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore dated 18.07.1994.) Common Judgement: 1. The appeal in A.S.No.194 of 2001 was filed by the 2nd plaintiff Saradha V.Ram. She having died pending appeal, 3rd respondent/3rd defendant has been transposed as 2nd appellant in this appeal. The said suit was filed for declaration that the deceased 1st plaintiff M.V.Krishnappa was the absolute owner of the suit properties, that the 1st defendant has no right over the suit properties, that the sale deed dated 14.02.1974 in favour of the 1st defendant is sham and nominal document and for the consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Subramaniam and Another Vs. Rukmani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.116 of 2012 in Unnumbered Appeal dated 17.09.2012, on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode.) 1. The appellants are the petitioners before this Court, challenging the order in I.A.No.116 of 2012 in unnumbered appeal dated 17.09.2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. 2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that he has filed the suit in O.S.No.43 of 2008 before the Principal Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam for specific performance. 3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the petitioners/appellants were executed a registered sale agreement on 13.06.2006 for selling the suit schedule of property in favour of the plaintiff, for the total sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- on the date of sale agreement, the respondent/plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.95,000/- as advance to the petitioners/defendants and the balance am...
Tag this Judgment!A. Somasundaram Vs. The Secretary to Government Home Department, Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2017
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.09.2016 rendered in W.P.No.31358 of 2014.) S.M. Subramaniam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred questioning the order pronounced by the learned Single Judge, on 29.09.2016, in W.P.No.31358 of 2014. 2. FACTUM OF THE CASE: (a) The writ petitioner in his sworn affidavit has stated that he was born on 29.11.1960, in Purasaiwalkam Police Lane, Chennai and his date of birth had been registered with the Corporation of Chennai, as 01.12.1960.Accordingly, his parents prepared his horoscope, but, at the time of admitting the Writ Petitioner in the School, the parents of the petitioner informed his date of birth as 02.01.1959, instead of 29.11.1960. (b) Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the writ appellant studied 6th standard in the year 1972, passed out the S.S.L.C., during the year 1978-79 and Plus Two co...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rangarajan and Another Vs. The District Collector Thiruvellore Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the notification under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) vide impugned gazette publication dated 19.08.2002 amended by an errata dated 01.11.2002 published in Form - II in the Thiruvellore District Gazette insofar as the same relates to the petitioner's land in Survey Nos.150/3 and 150/5 in No.26, Ponpadi Village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvellore District, measuring 121.03 cents, as lapsed. (Prayer amended as per order dated 31.01.2017 in WMP No.797 of 2017) Prayer in W.P. No.8182 of 2003: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the notification under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) vide impugned gazette publication dated 19.08.2002 amended by an errata ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Chellamuthu and Others Vs. Abinaya Muthusamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
(Common Prayer: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005 made in A.S.Nos.78 of 2003, 79 of 2003 and 80 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri by confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2003 made in O.S.Nos.315 of 1996, 316 of 1996 and 317 of 1996 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Judge Court at Hosur.) Common Judgment: 1. Second Appeals filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005 made in A.S.Nos.78 of 2003, 79 of 2003 and 80 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri by confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2003 made in O.S.Nos.315 of 1996, 316 of 1996 and 317 of 1996 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Court at Hosur. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rank and status shown in the original suits. 3. Suits for declaration, injunction and damages ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sarojini Vs. P. Mariappan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
(Prayer:- This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rules 1 and 2 of the Original Side Rules for the reliefs as stated therein.) Judgement: 1. Tr.CS.279 of 2011 had been filed to pass a judgement and decreeagainst the Defendant:- a. granting the relief of specific performance of the agreements between the parties dated 16.5.2006 and 21.8.2006 and directing the Defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit propertyin favour ofthe Plaintiff free from all encumbrances on receiving the balance of the sale considerationof Rs.4,88,000/- and in default, to have the sale deedexecutedand registered by this Court on behalf of the Defendant at the cost of the Plaintiff at the first instance to be recovered from the Defendant later. b. directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of damages and compensation towards unnecessary expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and towards wandering, physical difficulty and mental agony caus...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Saravana Store, represented by its Partner T. Ellappan, Chennai V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of CPC.) Judgement: 1. This civil suit is filed by the Plaintiff to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:- a. directing the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.28,15,390/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs fifteen thousand three hundred and ninety only) with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on Rs.28,15,390/- from the date of the plaint till the date of repayment of the said amount. b. directing the Defendant to pay the costs of the suit. 2. The Plaintiff is a Partnership Firm, carrying on business as Provisions and General Merchants. The Defendant is a Caterer. The Plaintiff had supplied provisions and general items to the Defendant for running the catering business. There was a running account maintained. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant had purchased provisions and general items from the Plaintiff to supply to their Canteen at Chennai Petroleum Corporation Li...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »