Court : Chennai
1. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for specific performance or in the alternative for the recovery of the advance amount with interest. 2. The averments contained in the plaint are briefly stated as follows: The first defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned property and the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 23.07.2009 agreeing to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.50,50,000/- free of all encumbrances and in pursuance of the same, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- towards advance. The above said agreement contained inter alia the clause that the purchaser, namely, the plaintiff can deduct a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- payable to the tenant. The first defendant, in pursuance of the mentioned sale agreement, had executed a registered power of attorney in favour of one Ms.Jenette D/o.J.A.Thambusami. The first defendant had agreed to redeem the suit property from the second defendant, where the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 02.12.2016 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in I.A.No.879/2016 in O.S.No.65/2012 C/w O.S.No.747 of 2009 and O.S.No.699/2009. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 02.12.2016 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.254/2016 in O.S.No.747 of 2009 c/w O.S.Nos.699/2009 and 65/2012.) Common Order: 1. Since the issue involved in both these Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, both were tried together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The CRP.PD.No.634/2017 has been filed against the fair and final order dated 02.12.2016 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.879/2016 in O.S.No.65/2012 C/w O.S.No.747 of 2009 and O.S.No.699/2009. 3. The CRP.PD.No.680/2017 has been filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal orders dated 06.02.2017 made in I.A.Nos.23, 24 and 25 of 2017 in O.S.No.278 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankarapuram.) Common Order: 1. Aggrieved over the fair and final orders passed in I.A.Nos.23, 24 and 25 of 2017 in O.S.No.278 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankarapuram, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 278 of 2011 for declaration and injunction. The defendants filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. 3. When the suit was taken up for trial and after the closure of the oral evidence, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the applications in I.A.Nos.23, 24 and 25 of 2017 to mark the sale deed dated 29.08.1923, to reopen the suit for further examination of D.W.1 and to recall D.W.1 for further examination. 4. In the affidavit filed in support...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.12.2016 made in I.A.No.240 of 2016 in O.S.No.179 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal.) 1. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.240 of 2016 in O.S.No.179 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.179 of 2004 for partition and for other reliefs. 3. The defendants filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. 4. After the commencement of trial, the plaintiff took out an application in I.A.No.240 of 2016 to recall D.W.1 for further cross examination. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the plaintiff has stated that based on the evidence of D.W.2, certain questions have to be put to D.W.1 by way of further cross examination. In these circumstances, the plaintiff sought for recalling D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order made in I.A.Nos.616 and 617 of 2016 in O.S.No.291 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.) Common Order: 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.Nos.616 and 617 of 2016 in O.S.No.291 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.291 of 2004 for permanent injunction. The defendants filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. 3. After framing the issues, the trial Court took up the matter for trial and after the completion of the oral evidence, the plaintiff filed applications in I.A.Nos.616 and 617 of 2016 to reopen and recall D.W.2 for further cross examination. The said applications were contested by the defendants stating that there is no necessity for further cross examin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 5th Respondent Tribunal in its order dated 14.12.2016 made in O.A. 1756 of 2016 quash the same and consequently allow the OA as prayed for.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The action taken by the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, for the conduct of limited departmental competitive examination for promotion to the post of P.S. Group B from the year 2012 onwards by clubbing the year wise vacancies to fill up 19% of the total posts by single examination without giving five physical chances to appear in five different years of examination, made the All India Association of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Tamil Nadu Circle, and one of its members, to file original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dismissed the original application t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the award and decree dated 20.02.2014 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.734/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge at Puducherry.) 1. The appellant is the claimant in MACTOP.No.734/2009 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry. The claim was made for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.93,000/- as compensation under various heads with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment which are as follows: Sl.No.Name of the HeadAmount Rs.1Permanent Disability58,000/-2Pain and Sufferings10,000/-3Medical Expenses5,000/-4Loss of Income during the treatment period10,000/-5Extra Nourishment5,000/-6Transport Charges5,000/-Total93,000/- The appeal is made with respect to the enhancement of the compensation for the fracture injuries sustained by him in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer in W.P.4336/2017: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in Order in Original SI.No.75/2016-ST (JC) dated 09.11.2016 and quashing the same and consequently, direct the respondent to adjudicate the matter afresh after issuing fresh show cause notice within the jurisdiction of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 by incorporating the materials collected from the Courier Agency. W.P.4337/2017: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in Order in Original SI.No.77/2016-ST (JC) dated 09.11.2016 and quashing the same and consequently, direct the respondent to adjudicate the matter afresh after issuing fresh show cause notice within the jurisdiction of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 by incorporating the materials collected from the Courier Agency....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the concerned records relating to the order dated 3.9.2014 in O.A.No.1451/2012 passed by the 5th respondent and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to exercise their option to have their pay fixed in the scale 4000-6000 w.e.f. 10.3.2008 and grant the petitioner all consequential monetary and other benefits award costs.) K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The request made by the petitioner to permit him to exercise option for fixation of pay under MACP Scheme was negatived by the Director, Central Cattle Breeding Farm, Chennai. The original application challenging the said order was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3 September 2014, in O.A.No.1451 of 2012, the unsuccessful petitioner is before this Court. 2. Heard the learned couns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(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!