Chennai Court June 2003 Judgments
The Commissioner, Mettupalayam Municipality Vs. the Nilgiris Co-operat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC481; (2003)2MLJ826
ORDERM. Thanikkachalam, J.1. The defendant before the trial Court, who succeeded at the first instance failed in the first appeal and the result is the second appeal.2. The respondent/plaintiff, who is the owner of certain buildings, which are within a compound spreading in an area of 3.6 acres, is doing manure manufacturing business after obtaining license from the appellant/defendant municipality. Though the plaintiff/respondent viz., Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society Limited obtained license for the above said business for each building, then they thought it fit that it may not be necessary for them to do so, in view of the fact that they are carrying on only one business, though in different buildings, within the same compound. Therefore, they have requested the Municipality under Exs.A1 to A3 to issue a single license, which was not accepted and in fact, it appears that the plaintiff was prosecuted, but ended in acquittal. The plaintiff Society unable to convince the municip...
Tag this Judgment!AustIn Reed Limited Vs. Suntex Garments, Represented by Its Partner Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: 2007(35)PTC774(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The applicant is a Company having its registered office in Station Road, THIRSK, North Yorkshire, Y 07, 1 QH, England consisting of three partners namely, defendants 2 to 4, who are carrying on business in Calcutta. The applicant manufactures and sells garments under the trademark 'Austin Reed'. The respondents run a business under the name and style of 'Suntex Garments'.2. The applicant commenced its business in 1900 and soon established a reputation for excellence and high quality. The applicant is an international player and has a trans-country reputation. In India, the applicant's trademark 'Austin Reed' was duly registered since 1950. In September 2001, the applicant came to know that the defendants were selling their garments using the applicant's trademark within and outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Further enquiries revealed that the respondents had filed a trademark application in the name 'Austin Reed' and a notice was issued on 24-09-...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jaisingh Vs. State by Inspector of Police (L and O)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3598
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This is an appeal made by the appellant/sole accused in a case of sexual assault before the trial Court wherein he was charged, tried and found guilty under S. 376(2) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to undergo 3 months S.I.2. The gist of the prosecution case as spelt out by the available materials could be stated as follows:P.W.1 Padma was residing at Door No. 18, B Block, M.S. Nagar, Waltax Road, Chennai, as a tenant under P.W.3 Mallika. The daughter of P.W.1 Premavathy, a child of 8 years old was doing her III Standard in the Corporation School at Kondithope. On the date of occurrence namely 20.1.1997 at about 18.00 hours, when she went outside for ablutions, she raised alarm uttering 'help, help'. On hearing this, P.Ws.1 and 3 rushed and witnessed the occurrence namely the appellant/accused causing sexual assault on the child. P.W.1 proceeded to C3 Police Station and gave a complaint marke...
Tag this Judgment!Meiyazhagan Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC342
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellant was arrayed as A.1 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, in S.C. No. 203 of 1999, along with another, who was arrayed as A.2. In the judgment, the appellant will be referred to as 'A.1' and the other accused, who was acquitted by the trial Court, will be referred to as 'A.2'. A.1 and A.2 were charged under Section 341 IPC. and A.2 was also charged under Section 342 IPC. A.1 was charged under Section 302 IPC., while A.2 was charged under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The allegation against them is that at about 3.30 a.m. on 20.1.1998, they wrongfully restrained the deceased, Kasinathan and that A.1 cut him with an aruval and caused his death and A.2 shared the common intention of A.1 in causing the death. The learned trial Judge, while acquitting A.2 under Section 341 IPC., convicted only A.1 under the said section and sentenced him to one month rigorous imprisonment. A.2 was acquitted under ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Chief Engineer, Nor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ726
ORDER OF THE BOARD)M. CHINNAKKANUCHIEF ENGINEER/PERSONNEL'5.1. Complaining that even though some uprooted families were provided employment as stated by the appellant/Board, such benefit was belied to the respondents/ land owners, despite the proceedings of the Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister dated 2.11.1995, requiring the District Collector to provide employment assistance at least to one member of the family which was affected by the land acquisition, the respondents/land owners preferred W.P. Nos. 10245 of 1997 and 5218 of 1996.5.2. The respondents/land owners relied upon the decision of E.PADMANABHAN, J, in DHARANIPATHY/LAKSHMI DEVI v. SECY. TO GOVT. OF T.N. & 3 OTHERS reported in 1997 WLR 498, wherein two decisions of the Apex Court, viz. (i) BANWASI SEVA ASHRAM Vs . STATE OF U.P. reported in : [1992]1SCR857; and (ii) CALCUTTA PORT TRUST v. DEBA PROSAD BAG & OTHERS reported in were followed.6. The appellant/Board traversed the claim of the respondents/land owners contending...
Tag this Judgment!Dcw Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2003
Reported in: 2003LC392(Madras); 2003(157)ELT510(Mad)
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the proceedings of the respondent in Order No. S59/MISC/60/95 Gr. III, dated 8-2-1996 and direct the respondent to refund the sun of Rs. 3,48,613.50 paid by mistake.2. The petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacturing of industrial chemicals among other things and it imported HCL Synthesis Spares under Bill of Entry, dated 20-1-1994. The petitioner claimed classification of the imported items as falling under Ch. 8417.90. The respondent department assessed the goods under Heading 6903.10, as a result of which the petitioner was constrained to make excess payment of customs duty amounting to Rs. 5,12,462/-, which was based on the order of the respondent, dated 7-6-1994. Against the classification, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and the appellate authority set aside the order of the respondent, dated 7-6-1994 and classified the goods...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. M.S. Rama Mohan Rao Vs. Mrs. S. Nagu Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC368; [2003]117CompCas403(Mad)
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This revision has been filed by the petitioner, who is A-5 in C.C. No. 3687 of 1999 against the orders passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1686 of 2000, on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, declining to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2.The circumstances under which the petition has come to be filed is as follows:A-1 is the Company, represented by its Managing Director Mr. D. Ravi Shankar, who is A-3 in the case, A-2 is the Branch-in-charge of A-1 Company and A-4 to A-7 are the Directors, who are alleged to have been in charge of the day to day affairs of A-1 Company. It is stated that they are carrying on business of Hire purchase Financing among other business and in such capacity the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the second accused Company as Fixed Deposit and after the maturity period was over, she went and approached for the maturity amount. After repeated requests, the compa...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Manicka Naicker Vs. N.J. Chandrasekar and Deenarakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad404
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.7.1991 rendered in A.S. No. 89 of 1990 by the Court of District Judge, Chengai Anna District at Chengalpattu, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1990 rendered in O.S. No. 199 of 1984 by the Court of District Munsif, Chengalpattu.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred what comes to be known is that the appellant herein has filed a suit against the respondents in O.S. No. 199 of 1984 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Chengalpattu praying for a declaration, declaring the plaintiff's title over the suit properties, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner alienating the suit properties or from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit properties and for costs on averments such as the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties measuring to an extent of 0.86 cents situated at No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ416Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The second respondent while working as durwan in the petitioner's stockyard at Peelamedu abused the watchman along with another employee by name Rangaraju. Both the second respondent and the said Rangaraju were dismissed from service as early in the year 1988. The said Rangaraju raised a dispute somewhere in the year 1990. The Labour Court awarded a penalty of cut in the increment. When the said award was challenged in W.P. 1 No. 12244/1993, this Court by order, dated August 24, 2001, directed the reinstatement of the said employee with a sum of Rs. 25,000/-representing 25 per cent of the back-wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the management, namely, the petitioner herein, preferred an appeal in W.A. No. 2284 of 2001 and a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated April 9, 2003, dismissed the said appeal. In so far as the order of reinstatement with back wages at 25 per cent in respect of Rangaraju has become final.2. It is not in dispute that the second re...
Tag this Judgment!Sevathal Alias Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Balan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad428
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-2-1998 rendered in A.S. No. 108 of 1996 by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 30-8-1996 rendered in O. S. No. 227 of 1991 by the Court of District Munsif, Krishnagiri.2. The plaintiff is the appellant and he has filed the suit against the respondent herein for declaration that he has got a right in the pathway indicated as 'AB' in the plaint rough plan and that he has got the right to pass through the said pathway to the well and to take his cart and cattle and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's usage of the said pathway and for costs on averments such as that the suit property was originally belonged to one Atmarao and his brother Satyanarayana Rao: that there are two wells and to reach the well and to take the cattle, the channel measuring 4 ft...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »