Chennai Court February 2017 Judgments
R. Thiruselvam and Others Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2017
(Prayer in H.C.P.No.1642 of 2015: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner, R.Thiruselvam, son of K.Raman, aged about 33 years now confined in Central Prison, Madurai as a remand prisoner before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. H.C.P.No.2058 of 2015: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner, Karthik, Son of Vijayan, aged about 29 years, now confined in Central Prison, Madurai as a remand prisoner before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. H.C.P.No.2059 of 2015: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner, John Martin @ John, Son of Arokiam, aged about 24...
Tag this Judgment!M. John Kennedy @ M.J. Kennedy Vs. The Inspector of Police, Thisaiyanv ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-16-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.293 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to call for the records in C.C.No.293 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri and quash the same. 2. It is averred in the petition that on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant on 08.02.2017, for the alleged occurrence, dated 10.12.2006, a case was registered by the first respondent in Cr.No.19 of 2007 for the offences under Section 457 and 380(NP) of I.P.C. The first respondent, after detailed investigation, filed final report by closing the complaint as mistake of fact on 09.02.2007. The second respondent/defacto complainant, in the mean time filed a Protest Petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, seeking a direction to reject the final report...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaraman and Another Vs. Chinnapillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 passed in A.S.No.37 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Judge at Kallakurichi concurring with the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2007 passed in O.S.No.694 of 2003 on the file of th III Additional District Munsif at Kallakurichi.) 1. In this second appeal, the plaintiffs have impugned the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 made in A.S.No.37 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2007 made in O.S.No.694 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi. 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 Courts below in dismissing the suit are based upon perverse findings and conclusions and misdirected against the evidence on records. 3. As seen...
Tag this Judgment!The District Registrar, Tirunelveli and Others Vs. R. Chidambara Raja ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-15-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 29.04.2016, made in W.P.(MD)No.5956 of 2016.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 29.04.2016, made in W.P. (MD)No.5956 of 2016. 2. The appellants are the respondents and the respondents are the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.5956 of 2016. The respondents filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 02.03.2016, passed by the third appellant and further forbearing the appellants from taking any proceedings to recover any additional stamp duty and registration fee. 3. According to the respondents, the first respondent's mother Venkittammal @ Sakku Bai entered into an agreement of sale with one Shanmugasundaram Pillai and Rajammal on 02.07.1987 in respect of the property in T.S.No.1605/2B and T.S.No.1606/2, measuring 1 cents and 55 cents respectively. The possession of the said properties were handed over to the f...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanthi Vs. J. Vijayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed in I.A.No.15568 of 2011 in O.S.No.7416 of 2008 dated 28.03.2012, on the file of XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The defendant is the Civil Revision Petitioner has filed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the order passed in I.A.No.15568 of 2011 in O.S.No.7416 of 2008 dated 28.03.2012, on the file of the learned XVIIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.7416 of 2008 against this petitioner/defendant for recovery of possession and also for damages. 3. The petitioner is none other than the sister of the respondent/plaintiff. 4. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the above suit against this petitioner/defendant alleging that the suit schedule of property was originally purchased by the plaintiff's father namely D.Jayaraman in the year 1984 with the f...
Tag this Judgment!Rebecca Ann Malstead and Others Vs. Union of India rep. by its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2017
(Common Prayer:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records connected with the second respondent's order No.RC-C328735/2015 dated 24.01.2017 and to quash the same.) Common Order 1. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the second respondent in his proceedings in RC-C3.28735/2015 dated 24.01.2017 and to quash the same. 3. The germane facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions are as follows: a) The first petitioner is the mother and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the first petitioner. They are Overseas Citizens of India (herein after referred to as OCI). The first petitioner and her husband, who are now in India were carrying on the noble activities of rescuing women from trafficking. They are also helping the children. They have been doing the said activities with the hel...
Tag this Judgment!N. Samidurai and Others Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-15-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the compulsory retirement order in G.O.2(D) No.272 dated 01.08.2014 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all back wages and thereby render justice.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 01.08.2014 passed in G.O.2(D) No.272, by which the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all back wages. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: i) The petitioner was recruited by the respondent as Grade II Constable and joined the service on 17.01.1986; that in connection with a case in Crime No.67 of 1997, one Krishnamoorthy was secured, for committing rape upo...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Ammal Vs. Dhanalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.32 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti.) 1. In this second appeal, the plaintiff has impugned the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.32 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Panruti. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for partition. 3. The plaintiff, claiming herself to be the daughter of Mannangatti and the first defendant, Janaki, since deceased and also stating that the second defendant is her sister and also on the footing that the suit properties, though some had been purchased in the name of the first defendant and some had been acquired ...
Tag this Judgment!Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2017
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard Mr.C.Munusamy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ Appellant and Mr.R.Ravichandran, Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the Respondent/Complainant. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 03.01.2017 in S.C.No.538 of 2013 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram. 3. The Learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, while passing the Judgment in S.C.No.538 of 2013 on 03.01.2017, had found the Petitioner/ Appellant/Accused guilty in respect of an offence under Section 417 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of said fine amount, he was also directed to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. Further, it was ordered that the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be pai...
Tag this Judgment!S. Seemoan Vs. R.G.V. Selvaraj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2010 in A.S.No.13 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 in O.S.No.97 of 2008 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Rasipuram.) 1. In this second appeal, the defendant has impugned the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2010 made in A.S.No.13 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 made in O.S.No.97 of 2008 on the file of the subordinate Court, Rasipuram. 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 borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from P.M.Sundaram on 16.06.2001 and in evidence thereof, executed a promissory note in his favour assuring that he would repay the amount with interest as and when demanded. It is further pleaded ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »