Chennai Court February 2017 Judgments
M. Kannan Vs. State rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, (Mahilar Fast Track Court) Erode, in Spl.S.C.No.35 of 2015 dated 12.04.2016.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. Every person has a right to a fair trial by a competent Court is the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India "Denial of fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as it is to the to the victim and the society".The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr vs State Of Gujarat and Ors reported in 2006 3 SCC 374 has explained the concept of fair trail and said that it is central to the administration of justice and the cardinal principal of protection of human rights. In the instant case, the principal ground raised by the appellant is that there was denial of fair trail to him before the trial Court. Let us go into the circumstances under which such a plea is raised by the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
1. Mr.R.Govindasamy, Learned Special Government Pleader informs this Court that he appears for R1 to R5. No counter is filed on behalf of R1 to R5. 2. Admittedly, Review Application Nos.44 and 45 of 2015 filed by the Petitioner were dismissed by this Court on 14.08.2015, since there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner even after the Review Applications were called for the second time. 3. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that when the Review Applications came up for hearing on 14.08.2015, he was unable to present with a view to prosecute the matter, because of the reason that he was held up before other Court. 4. This Court, on being subjectively satisfied as to the reason ascribed on behalf of the Petitioner, by taking a lenient and liberal view and to advance the cause of Justice, without harping on technicalities, allows the M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2015 and directs the restoration of Review Application Nos.44 and 45 ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekaran Vs. Thagattur Anna Chatram Vinayagar Mutt, Rep. by it's ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2010 made in A.S.No.29 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, confirming judgment and decree dated 05.02.2007 made in O.S.No.260 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam.) 1. In this second appeal, the second defendant has impugned the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2010 made in A.S.No.29 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2007 made in O.S.No.260 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal;- (a) Whether the suit laid by Ram kumar cliaiming to be the Managing Trustee of the plaintiff's Trust is maintainable when there is a cloud over the Managing Trusteeship of the plaintiff's Trust? (b) Whether the Courts are leg...
Tag this Judgment!J. Meena Vs. T. Manikandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC to set-aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 28.04.2015, made in I.A.No.2826 of 2014 in O.P.No.4650 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Family Court at Chennai. Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, against the order dated 01.07.2015 made in CMA No.1092 of 2015.) 1. Children are not mere chattels nor are they toys for their parents. Absolute right of parents over the destinies and the lives of their children, in the modern changed social conditions must yield to the considerations of their welfare as human beings so that they may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful members of the society and the guardian court in case of a dispute between the mother and the father, is expected to strike a just and proper balance between the requirements of welfare of the minor children and the rights of their respective parents over them - (2009) 1 SCC 42 (Gaurav Nagpal Vs....
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Akshaya Constructions by its Partners De. Chellappa and A.D. Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order II Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit had been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendants:- a. directing the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.42,00,000/-. b. directing the Defendants to pay interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.42,00,000/- with effect from 28.9.2007. c. for costs. 2. It had been stated in the plaint that the 1st Plaintiff, a registered partnership Firm represented by the Plaintiffs 2 and 3, is engaged in the real estate business. The 1st Defendant is a Trust and 2nd Defendant is its Managing Trustee and the Defendants 3 to 5 are Trustees. The 1st Defendant is the owner of the land to an extent of 2 grounds in Town S.No.6/1, Block 4, Adyar Zamin Village, in Patta No.34. The Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant had entered into an sale agreement dated 24.9.2005 in respect of the said property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,00...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Vs. Pichandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011 made in A.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2010 made in O.S.No.53 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Katpadi.) 1. In this second appeal, the plaintiff has impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2011 made in A.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2010 made in O.S.No.53 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Katpadi. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for partition. 3. Claimingthat the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and her father i.e. the second defendant and also alleging that the plaintiff and the defendants have entered into an arrangement in the presence of the village elders on 20.03.2000 regarding the division...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Elavarasan Vs. The Commissioner of Police Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 4th respondent herein to produce the body and person of the detenu by name Mr.R.T.Ramachandran, Member of Legislative Assembly in Kunnam Constituency, aged about 42 years before this Court and set him at liberty.) T. Mathivanan. J. 1. Heard Mr.K.Balu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Mr.R.Rajarathinam, the learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the fourth respondent, to produce the detenu, namely, Mr.R.T.Ramachandran, aged about 42 years, Member of the Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as M.L.A), Kunnam Constituency, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 3. We have perused the averments made in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirthana Vs. Vinaya Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2017
(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) for the recovery of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards liquidated damages together with interest from the date of plaint till the date of realization at the rate of 18% per annum. b) costs of the suit;) The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards liquidated damages together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that in the year 2008, there was a discussion between Mrs.Ramya Krishnan, a cine artist who had expressed her interest about making an entry in the small screen industry to the plaintiff. Prior to few months to the said discussion, the plaintiff had branched out from her mother namely Ms.Kutty Padmini, who is also a leading child artist, now producing various serials in the small screen industry...
Tag this Judgment!P. Beula Vs. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Rep. by its Registrar, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-16-2017
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent bearing MSU/CD/QAFIP/NMC 2/2010, dated 06.09.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to approve the petitioner's qualification.) 1. Aggrieved against the order, dated 06.09.2010 whereby, the petitioner's request for qualification approval was rejected on the ground that NET/SLET shall remain the minimum recruitment for appointment as lecturer in the respondent college, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. Pending the Writ Petition, when the issue was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2015) 8 SCC 129 (P.Suseela and Ors. V. University Grants Commission), while holding that the UGC Regulations prescribing NET/SLET/SET as minimum eligibility condition for appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors in higher educational institutions as val...
Tag this Judgment!Sarjan Realities Private Limited and Others Vs. Aathilingaperumal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-16-2017
(Prayer: Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.181 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.) P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil dated 25.11.2011 in O.S.No.181 of 2009, decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. 2. The plaint averments are as follows: 2.1. The first defendant Sarjan Realities Private Limited is engaged in the business of purchasing, selling and otherwise dealing in land for itself and for others for setting up of wind farm projects. The second defendant is the Director of the first defendant company and third defendant is the power of attorney and authorised signatory of the first defendant company under power of attorney deed dated 27.06.2003. The third defendant, as the power of attorney ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »