Chennai Court February 2017 Judgments
T. Rajkumar Vs. Dr. Palaniappan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram in I.A.No.289 of 2013 in O.S.No.252 of 2009.) 1. The second defendant has preferred this revision challenging the dismissal of the application refusing to receiving the additional written statement filed by him under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for R1. Despite service being effected, there is no representation on behalf of the second respondent either in person or through the counsel. 3. The first respondent/plaintiff herein originally filed a suit in O.S.No.252 of 2009 for a bare injunction. The written statements were also filed by the defendants. Only after the written statement was filed, the plaintiff filed an amendment petition seeking the relief of declaration of title, which was a...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesa Achari Vs. Sakunthala Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu, dated 3.11.2010 in A.S.No.54 of 2002 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif of Chengalpattu, dated 11.12.2001 in O.S.No.663 of 1993.) 1. In this second appeal, the defendant has impugned the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2010 made in A.S.No.54 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2001 made in O.S.No.663 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration, possession, permanent injunction in respect of the "B" schedule property described in the plaint and shown as "CDEF" in the plaint plan and also for damages. 3. It is admitted that the "B" schedule property forms part of the "A" schedule property and further, it is stated that the suit property, as suc...
Tag this Judgment!Thangasamy (Died) and Another Vs. The State represented by Inspector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2017
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.10824 of 2009 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.) 1. Invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have filed this petition to quash the criminal proceedings of the calender case in C.C.No.10824 of 2009, pending trial against them on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The petitioners herein are the 2nd and 3rd accused in the above case. 3. Heard Mr.C.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.I.Jenkins William, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. On the strength of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein, the 1st respondent/Police had registered a case in crime No.14 of 2008 as against the petitioners and one T...
Tag this Judgment!Thangavelu Vs. Ranganayagi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2009 made in A.S.No.100 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2008 made in O.S.No.188 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam.) 1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit for declaration and delivery of possession filed against the defendant, who is none other than the widow of the plaintiff's brother, was dismissed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court. 2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property, which is the house and vacant site, is originally owned by one Karuthiruma gounder. He had three sons by name Subbaiyan, Thangavelu and Chinnamuthu. Thangavelu is the plaintiff and wife of late Chinnamuthu is the defendant. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was inherited by three sons of Karuthiruma...
Tag this Judgment!Arumuga Reddiar and Others Vs. S. Jayalakshymi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2009 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Sub - Court, Ponneri, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007 passed in O.S.No.214 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2009 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007 passed in O.S.No.214 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri. 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 are misdirected against the evidence on record and based upon the perverse findings and conclusions?" 3. The suit has be...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian and Others Vs. Kalliaperumal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District, dated 23.06.1998 passed in A.S.No.115 of 1997 dismissing the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District in O.S.No.51 of 1997 dated 17.04.1997.) 1. The second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed for partition. 2. According to the plaintiffs, one Srinivasa Padaiyachi had agricultural land at Movoor village and residential house at Thiruvizhandhur village, South Arcot, Mayavaram Taluk, Tanjavur District. He had three sons by name, Saminathan, Gurunathan and Chellamuthaian. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are sons of Saminathan and plaintiffs 4 to 7 are children of Gurunathan. The defendants are wife of Chellamuthaian and his children. The plaintiffs contended that Srinivasa Padaiyachi ex...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. NGA Steels (P) Ltd. Pappankadu, Salem District Vs. The Customs, E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed against the order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Chennai, made in Appeal No.E/511/2008/MAS (Final Order No.1783/09).) Judgment Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the 1st respondent, viz., Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal had modified the order by imposing fine of Rs.2,00,263/=, in lieu of confiscation of the goods. 2. The facts, which has culminated in the filing of this appeal, could be briefly summarised as under :- An inspection was conducted by the authorities of the 2nd respondent on 26.12.2006 at the factory premises of M/s.Krishna Alloys. At the time of verification, the physical quantity was found to be in variation with the stock and account registers. It was also found that there was removal of a total quantity of 67.475 Mts., of Ingots on two different dates, viz., 24.12.2006 ...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Paramasivam Vs. The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Pla ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-13-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1411/2015 Thiuthiku2 dated 18.09.2015 and the consequential impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.ka.No.1411/2015/Thiuthiku 2 dated 27.01.2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner's building pending disposal of the retention application preferred by the petitioner dated 19.01.2017.) A. Selvam, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the proceedings dated 18.09.2015 and 27.01.2017 issued by the third respondent and quash the same, by way of issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has put up a building after getting nece...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaram Naidu Vs. Vasanthi Kumari and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1995 in A.S.No.5 of 1993, on the file of the District Judge, South Arcot affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.09.1992 in O.S.No.338 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore.) 1. The appellant herein is the first defendant in the suit, who lost before both the Courts below. The suit was laid for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits on the premise that, the plaintiff's mother and the first defendant are daughter and son of Gopal Naidu. On the eve of the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant, the suit properties were settled in favour of the plaintiff on 24.06.1970 by Gopal Naidu as prenuptial settlement. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnised on 15.07.1970. After few years of marriage, misunderstanding surfaced between the plaintiff and the first defendant resulting in their separation. The first defendant contin...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Muthulakshmi Vs. Prabakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2017
(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying for expeditious disposal of Rent Control Original Petition filed by the petitioner in RCOP.No.1129 of 2013 pending on the file of XII Small Causes Court, Chennai within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been laid for giving a direction to the Rent Controller to dispose of RCOP.No.1129 of 2013 within a particular time frame. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed, it is found that the matter has already been heard in part and it is now represented that even the evidence of the respective parties has been concluded. It is therefore found that the proceedings are at a final stage. In such view of the matter, there is no need for any direction from this Court to dispose of the matter within a particular time frame. 3. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his case relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in2016 SCC Online SC 744 Gayathri Vs. M.Girish. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »