Canara Bank vs R.P.Gnanamani
Judges:
12 January, 2017·It is represented by both the learned counsel appearing on either side, the suit itself is dismissed. Therefore, nothing survives in the Civil revision petition. Hence, the prayer in the civil revision petition has become infructuous.2. Recording the said submission made by the learned counsel appea...
Madras High Court
Sankarapandi : vs State Of Tamil Nadu
Judges:
12 January, 2017·[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] The petitioner is the detenu - Sankarapandi, S/o.Mahendran, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.23/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 09.08.2016, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(...
Madras High Court
Nanjundan vs 4 K.Elango
Judges:
11 January, 2017·pri W.P.Nos.650 and 651 of 2017 And W.M.P.Nos.700 and 701 of 2017 11.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in...
Madras High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Baranikumar ... 1St
Judges:
11 January, 2017·ds CMA.No.3366 of 2004 and CMA.No.1971 of 2005 11.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in...
Madras High Court
M.Deivasigamani vs Canara Bank
Judges:
11 January, 2017·vs C.R.P.(PD) Nos.3404 and 3405 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 11.01.2017...
Madras High Court
M.Kandasamy vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd
Judges:
11 January, 2017·The plaintiff is the Bank which has filed the suit for recovery of money borrowed by the first defendant. The second defendant is the guarantor. The first defendant-borrower remained ex-parte. Now, the second defendant is seeking to implead the wife of the first defendant as third defendant in the s...
Madras High Court
Multivista Global Limited vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
Judges:
11 January, 2017·(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner was granted planning permission by the CMDA/ second respondent on 2.9.1997 in respect of the property at No.44, K.B.Dasan Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 comprised in R.S.No.3781/12 (part), Block No.74 of Mylapore, Chennai....
Madras High Court
In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs State Represented By
Judges:
11 January, 2017·The petitioner is the defacto complainant in the case. Of a quantum of 700 boxes of cashew sought to be exported by him 182 boxes were stolen. Pursuant to complaint there regards case in Crime No.1399 of 2015 has been registered and from six accused alleged sale proceeds of Rs.8,50,000/- cashew sold...
Madras High Court
D.Arul Singh Gnana Selvaraj vs Tmt.S.Christy
Judges:
11 January, 2017·PRAYER: This petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents herein for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the Order of this Hon'ble Court dated 23.10.2017 in Writ Appeal (MD) No.1248 of 2017 under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court...
Madras High Court
Mr.M.Narayanan vs 5 . Mrs. Padmavathy
Judges:
11 January, 2017·When the above Criminal Revision Case was posted for hearing on 09.01.2017, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the matter was posted today for dismissal . Even today also there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed for non p...
Madras High Court
Don’t wait for legal issues to escalate
By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, Refund Policy and Content Policies. © 2023 - Uber9 Business Process Services Private Limited. All rights reserved.