Chennai Court March 2017 Judgments
National Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. S. Arumugasamy and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2017
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1921, against the award dated 25.10.2004 made in W.C.No.130 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Court No.II, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai - 600 006.) 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award dated 25.10.2004 made in W.C.No.130 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Court No.II, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai - 600 006. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would mainly contend that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation II/Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai - 6, has failed to take into consideration the relevant materials placed before him and also failed to consider the documents Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.6-Permit and erroneously fixed the li...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ponnusamy Vs. K. Muthusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.12.2016 made in I.A.No.1026 of 2016 in O.S.No.38 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode.) 1. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.1026 of 2016 in O.S.No.38 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode, the 1st defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2011 for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The suit was filed in the year 2011 and the 1st defendant filed his written statement on 10.09.2012. Thereafter, the trial Court framed issues and the suit was taken up for trial. 4. After the commencement of trial, the 1st defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1026 of 2016 under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code to permit him to file additional written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the 1st defendant has stated that at the time o...
Tag this Judgment!M. Munusamy @ Chinnapaiyan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to grant permission and police protection for conducting cock fight at Valakkanampoodi Pudur Village, near Kanni Koil, R.K.Pettai, Tiruvallur District on 11th, 12th and 13th March 2017.) 1. Invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus as against the respondent police to grant permission as well as police protection to the petitioner for conducting cock fight at Valakkanampoodi Pudur Village, near Kanni Koil, R.K.Pettai, Tiruvallur District on 11th, 12th and 13th March 2017. 2. Heard Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Emalias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, has made reference to the following orders passed by this Court pertaining to the prayer sought for by the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Rayyaan Architects, Rep by Managing Partner, Mohamed Hayas Vs. Dr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and order dated 23.12.2016 made in I.A.No.17071 of 2016 in O.S.No.3486 of 2014 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.17071 of 2016 in O.S.No.3486 of 2014 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.3486 of 2014 for recovery of money. 3. The defendants filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. 4. When the suit was taken up for trial, since the defendants failed to appear before the trial Court, they were set exparte and an exparte order was passed, closing the evidence on the side of the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants filed applications in I.A.No.17071 of 2016 to reopen the evidence of P.W.1, I.A.No.17072 of 2016 to recall P.W.1 for cross examination and I.A.No.170...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Shanmugam Vs. Lakshmi Shanmugam
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-09-2017
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, made in E.P.No.134/97 in HMOP.No.254/91 dated 13.11.2006.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, made in E.P.No.134/97 in HMOP.No.254/91 dated 13.11.2006, whereby, the petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the Court below. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent herein and the respondent herein had filed H.M.O.P.No.254 of 1991 before the Court below for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.59 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 2.1 Both the cases were tried jointly and ultimately, the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the petitioner's petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Veeranan Vs. The District Collector, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-08-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to forbear the second respondent to demolish the petitioner's house situated in Survey No.86/8 at Athikaripatty Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2017.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the first respondent to forbear the second respondent from demolishing the house of the petitioner situates in Survey No.86/8 at Athikaripatty Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. 2. Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that in respect of Survey No.86/8, a patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner wherein he put up a dwell...
Tag this Judgment!A. Thilagam Vs. The Chairman/The District Collector, Tirunelveli Town ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
(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 the records culminating in issuance of the impugned proceeding issued by the first respondent dated 27.02.2017 bearing reference No.Na.Ka.No.1535/16 Thi Vu Thi Ku and consequential proceedings dated 28.02.2017 bearing date 01.03.2017, to quash the same as null and void and direct the first and second respondents to remove the lock and seal and permit the third respondent to run the shop in No. 181 5/A, S.N.High Road, Sripuram, Tirunelveli - 627 007.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 27.02.2017 bearing No.Na.Ka.No. 1535/16Thi.Vu.Thi.Ku and the consequential proceedings dated 01.03.2017 and quash the same, by way of issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus. 2. Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government P...
Tag this Judgment!A/m Kulumayee Amman Thirukoil, Festival Committee, Rep. by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to grant police permission to conduct the Annual Temple Festivals in connection with the Ceremonies, Poojas in Arulmighu Kulumayee Amman Thirukovil and Ondi Karuppu Thirukovil festival on 23.02.2017, 07.03.2017 to 11.03.2017 in the petitioner's Village, (Puthur Village), Trichy Taluk, Trichy District on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2017. 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant police permission to conduct the Annual Temple Festivals in connection with the Ceremonies, Poojas in Arulmighu Kulumayee Amman Thirukovil and Ondi Karuppu Thirukovil festival on 23.02.2017, 07.03.2017 to 11.03.2017 in the petitioner's Village, (Puthur Village), Trichy Taluk, Trichy District on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2017. 2. It is the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Iyer Vs. M/s. Anandammal Adheena Trust, Represented by its Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015 in O.S.No.465 of 2002 dated 07.09.2016 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry.) Common Order: 1. Challenging the orders passed in I.A.No.36 of 2015 and I.A.No.37 of 2015 in O.S.No.465 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.465 of 2002 for recovery of possession. 3. The suit was filed in the year 2002. In the year 2003, the defendant filed his written statement and has been contesting the suit. The trial Court framed the issues and after the completion of the trial and when the suit was reserved for judgment, the defendant took out applications in I.A.No.36 of 2015 to reopen the proceedings in the suit and I.A.No.37 of 2015 to permit him to file additional written statement. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaraj @ Thamizharasan Vs. State by The Deputy Superintendent of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2017
(Prayer: Appeal filed u/s.21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1471/2016 in Special S.C. No.5 of 2014 dated 27.09.2016 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Sec.21 of the National Investigation Agency Act of 2008, challenging the order of Special S.C. No.5 of 2014 dated 27.09.2016, by the Special Court, Puducherry, under the National Investigation Agency Act, declining to grant bail to the appellant herein, in the case in R.C.No.1/2014/NIA/HYD under Sec.307 IPC, Sec.4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 3. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that number of grounds were raised by the appellant before the trial Court in order to pers...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »