Chennai Court March 2002 Judgments
Officine Lovato S.P.A. Vs. Raajan Automobiles (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC343(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The applicants in O.A. No. 337 to 339 of 2001 are the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 265 of 2001. The applicants in Application No. 4803 of 2001 is defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, who have moved the application to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 11.4.2001 in O.A. No. 339 of 2001. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents or anyone claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered patent bearing No. 01301264 by using the offending patents either using the trade mark 'LOVATO' and 'LOVATO AUTOGAS' or the trade mark RAAJAN AUTO GAS or any other mark or marks which are in any way identical with or colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered patent, bearing the trade mark 'LOVATO' AND 'LOVATO AUTOGAS', either by manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or in any man...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi theatre by Its Proprietor M.K.M. Madivadan Vs. Chairman, M.M.W.S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad267; (2002)1MLJ821
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondents pertaining to the cut off notice dated 20.2.98 and to quash the order therein.2. Heard both sides.3. The short facts involved in this writ petition are: The petitioner was served with notice dated 20.2.98 to pay tax at the rate of Rs.7431.85 for every half year with effect from I-1992-1993 . The original tax to the said property was Rs.2448/- per half year. Prior to the said notice no demand notice was served by the respondents. Hence prayed for the quashing of the impugned notice.4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that prior to the impugned order no notice was issued by the respondent, that under Sec. 34(1) of the Act the respondent Board shall levy both Water and Sewerage taxes, that under Sec.34(2) the water tax shall not be more than 20% of the assessed annual value of the property and the sewerage tax shall not be more than 10% of the annual val...
Tag this Judgment!P. Periasamy, S/O Ponnusamy, Cuddalore Vs. the General Manager (Operat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ701Mad
ORDER1. By consent the main writ petition itself was taken up and arguments heard.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be summarised as follows:The writ petitioner was working as a Conductor in the respondent Depot at Cuddalore. Alleging misconduct of misappropriation as found by the Auditing Committee, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 21.6.2001. The charges in main were that: when he was performing duty in route No.310-G service between Cuddalore and Trichy, apart from taking the regular ticket book for that route, he had also taken the ticket books of some other route and also the invoices; he had corrected the ticket book and invoice of the other route whenever the Checking Inspector inspected, so that they tallied with the actual collection, which he remitted to the office; he had also suppressed the amount collected on the issuance of ticket book relating to such other route and misappropriated the same; he also forged the signatures of drivers, ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Pitchamuthu Vs. Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri E.D. Circle, Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ725
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 8.8.1996 in Memo. No.1-1/PS/A-1/142/96 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondent to release all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner arising out of the retirement of the petitioner from the services of the respondent on 30.6.1995.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he was employed as Stores Custodian in the respondent Board; that during December 1988, the Stores were checked by the Special Team, Madras and found 56 items were in shortage; that therefore, the respondent issued a notice on 22.5.1989 against the petitioner to show cause as to why the cost of the materials found short should not be recovered from him; that the petitioner sent a reply on 5.6.1989; that the respondent issued yet another notice on 26.7.19...
Tag this Judgment!S.F. Abdul Jaleel Vs. V.M. Abdul Majid Rowther Trust at Vijayapuram Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ427
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. This is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a tenant.2. The first respondent herein - landlord filed a petition for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thiruvarur against the petitioner and the other respondents 2 to 4 herein. The said petition was allowed and an order was passed for eviction. There is no dispute with regard to the above facts. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of the first respondent filing the execution petition, one S.H. Amruthin has filed the execution petition in his individual capacity and the same was numbered as E.P.No.73 of 2001. It is stated that in the Execution Petition served on him shows one S.H. Amruthin's name alone as the petitioner and building owner. It is further stated that the schedule property was also different from the schedule property in RCOP.No.18 of 1992. Therefore, there are lot of discrepancies in them. With these facts the petitioner expecte...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. L. Prakash Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2596
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Dr. L. Prakash, a detenu under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai 2nd respondent herein to give him all the facilities as a 'Special Class Prisoner' even when he is undergoing detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 is Central Prison, Chennai.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-- According to him, he was arrested by the Inspector of Police, R8 Vadapalani Police Station, Chennai for various offences, particularly Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He is a Medical Doctor by profession. After securing M.B.B.S. degree, he obtained a degree in M...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Strips Limited Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder Sri Jai Pra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC141(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. These two writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.18965 and 18966 of 1998 are having some peculiar facts. 2. The petitioner, the assessee herein purchased some goods from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'T.N.E.B.' for the sake of brevity), on his tender having been accepted on 10.7.1990. It is an admitted position that the goods, after being received, were despatched outside the State of Tamil Nadu, i.e., to Raigarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner/assessee then filed a return and was issued a pre-assessment notice in respect of the goods purchased by him from the T.N.E.B. and which goods were despatched outside the State. The assessee took an objection that the goods were exempted under the notification dated 1.11.1982 bearing G.O.Ps.No.1215, under which a blanket exemption was granted in respect of the tax payable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (in short the 'T.N.G.S.T. Act') on all sales of goods effected by ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kuppusamy Vs. Palaniammal Pappath and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ48
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Despite service there is no representation for the second respondent.2. The order of the Court below namely Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, allowing the application to summon the original Will from another suit pending on the file of O.S. No. 603 of 1999 is under challenge.3. It was a suit filed for partition by the respondents herein alleging that the father of the plaintiff, one Kaliappa Gounder died intestate. The prime defence that was taken by the first defendant was that the said Kaliappa Gounder executed a Will on 10.2.1989 and thus it was not correct on the part of the plaintiff to state that he died intestate. It is also admitted thatP.W.1 was examined and the matter is part heard. At that juncture, the plaintiff/petitioner filed on application to send for the original Will filed in O.S. No. 603 of 1999 alleging that the said Will was written by a scribe, Mr. Kandasamy and that the Will dated 10.2.1989 now relied on by the first defendant alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathy W/O Pulavar R. Palanisamy and Pulavar R. Palanisamy S/O Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ133
ORDERK. Sampath, J. 1. By consent the main revision petition itself is taken up.2. The civil revision petition is filed against the order of dismissal of the prayer for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property, note down the physical features, besides the age, stage and measurement of the new construction in B Schedule property and submit a report, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, made on 3-4-2001 in I.A.No.78/2001 in O.S.No.65/2001 on his file. 3. The suit itself has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents, etc. from in any manner interfering with the easementary right of light and air to A Schedule School Buildings by making any offending constructions in the B Schedule site or by making any further constructions and for a mandatory injunction for removal of the offending constructions in B Schedule site, which are affecting or interfering with the easementary right of light and air ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Selva Vinayagar Koil Rep. by Its Trustees, Old Pattu Saliar Street ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ129
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The plaintiffs in C.S.No.273 of 1994 are the appellants herein. The suit was filed for (i) declaration that the appellant temple is the absolute owner of the property described in the schedule of the plaint and for consequential permanent injunction against the respondents 1 to 3 restraining them from dealing with the property in any manner, (ii) directing the respondents 1 to 3 to submit the accounts for the collection of rents from the suit property from 17.11.1993 till the date of delivery of possession, and (iii) directing the respondents to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the property.2. The claim of the appellants is that originally the suit property belonged to one Ramalinga Chettiar. He executed a trust deed on 13.2.1919, which is marked as Ex.P1 in the suit. Under the said trust deed, the owner of the property Ramalinga Chettiar appointed 5 persons as trustees with a direction to distribute the income from out of the suit property as follows:i. to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »