Chennai Court August 2004 Judgments
Maya Appliances Private Limited, Represented by Mr. Durairajan General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC334
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The applicant/plaintiff has filed the suit (i) for a judgment and decree against the respondents/defendants for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the trade mark CHEFPRO and CHEFPRO PLUS, (ii) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright in the lay out, colour scheme, get up, design, artistic work, etc., of the CHEFPRO and CHEFPROPLUS series of mixer grinders and its accessories, (iii) for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, employees from in any manner passing off the defendant's goods as that of the plaintiff's by selling, advertising or offering to sell or using the plaintiffs Trade Marks or any mark or product which is identical with confusingly similar or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs Trade Marks and/or lay out, colour scheme, get up, design, artistic work, etc., of the products, and (iv) for permanent, injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, e...
Tag this Judgment!R. Priyadarshini Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC321
ORDER1. The petitioner's father belongs to Kattunaicken community which has been notified as Scheduled Tribe. On the strength of the said certificate, the petitioner was issued with a similar certificate certifying her as belonging to Kattunaicken community by the Tahsildar, Madurai South. The said certificate was issued on 28.7.86 when the petitioner was aged 10 years. Based on the said certificate, the petitioner completed her education. The genuineness of the said certificate was sought to be verified by the District Collector, Madurai who, by an order dated 23.10.2002, cancelled the certificate. On the basis of the order of the District Collector, the petitioner has been prosecuted for the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420, IPC in cr.No.25 of 2004 on the file of respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). 3. The petitioner has questioned the registration of the case basically on the ground that the certificate issue...
Tag this Judgment!Green India Enterprises Vs. Check-post Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: [2006]144STC93(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. Petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent not to insist on payment of tax on agency purchases without issuing any legal and statutory notice in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in [1992] 87 STC 196 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti) and [1993] 90 STC 1 [Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu].2. According to the petitioner, it is a proprietory concern, doing business in raw rubber sheets and that the concern is also registered under the TNGST Act, 1959 and CST Act, 1956. It also claims that it is a licensed dealer. While so, the grievance of the petitioner is that it used to purchase raw rubber from the local market and dispatch them to the principals on receipt of directions from the principals 'to purchase and dispatch' and in the circumstances there was no scope for payment of sales tax either under the provisions of the TNGST Act or CST A...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit, Investigation Circle Vs. S. Dharamchand Jain
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)278ITR41(Chennai)
This, appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 14-8-1997 cancelling the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act.There was a search in the assessee's premises under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, on 14-12-1995. The revenue authorities seized various documents and a cash of Rs. 1,00,000. In response to a notice issued under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, the assessee filed the return of income for the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 declaring an income of Rs. 22,91,356. The assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 towards outstanding due before filing the block return. The assessee has also requested the assessing officer and other authorities to permit the assessee to pay the tax as per the block return in installments. This request of the assessee was not disposed of by the revenue authorities. The assessing officer issued notice under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act to show cause why penalty shou...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. S. Dharamchand Jain
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Chennai)1033
This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 14-8-1997, cancelling the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act.There was a search in the assessee's premises under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, on 14-12-1995. The revenue authorities seized various documents and a cash of Rs. 1,00,000. In response to a notice issued under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, the assessee filed the return of income for the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 declaring an income of Rs. 22,91,356. The assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 towards outstanding due before filing the block return. The assessee has also requested the assessing officer and other authorities to permit the assessee to pay the tax as per the block return in instalments. This request of the assessee was not disposed of by the revenue authorities. The assessing officer issued notice under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act to show cause why penalty shou...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. S Dharamchand Jain
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)278ITR41(Chennai)
This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 14-8-1997, cancelling the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act.There was a search in the assessee's premises under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, on 14-12-1995. The revenue authorities seized various documents and a cash of Rs. 1,00,000. In response to a notice issued under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, the assessee filed the return of income for the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 declaring an income of Rs. 22,91,356. The assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 towards outstanding due before filing the block return. The assessee has also requested the assessing officer and other authorities to permit the assessee to pay the tax as per the block return in instalments. This request of the assessee was not disposed of by the revenue authorities. The assessing officer issued notice under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act to show cause why penalty shou...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sundari Nadachi (Died), Vs. Appiamma Nadachi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad10
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below (now represented by legal representatives), are the appellants herein.2. The case of the plaintiff is that she filed a suit for redemption. One Velayudhan, son of Kumaran, mortgaged the suit property in favour of one Nallamuthan, son of Poruthiyudayan on 19.11.1076 M.E. The plaintiff purchased the Eastern 88 cents on the Northern end of the suit property from the successor in interest of the mortgagor. Defendants-2 to 4 are the heirs of the mortgagee, and under them, the plaintiff is in possession of the entire mortgaged property. Defendants-1, 2 and 4 executed three sub-mortgages for Rs.504.94. The plaintiff obtained these sub mortgage rights on payment and is in possession of the property. The mortgage amount payable for redemption is 200 panams. The value of improvements including the value of building is Rs.400/-. The plaintiff has already paid Rs.504.94 on account of the sub-mortgages executed by the mortga...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Baghawandas Mangal, Proprietor, Nathulal Mangal Vs. Mr. S. Mohamed ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad33; (2004)4MLJ144
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 13.2.2004 made in E.P.No. 515 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.988 of 2003 by the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. Tracing the history of the above Civil RevisionPetition coming to be filed before this Court, it comes to be known that the respondent herein/landlord has filed R.C.O.P.No.988 of 2003 before the Court below under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act and the same having been decreed exparte on 1.8.2003, the landlord has also filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.515 of 2003 and since the Court below has terminated the Execution Petition after recording the submission of the learned counsel for the landlord that possession has already been taken, the petitioner/ tenant has come forward to file the above civil revision petition on grounds such as that the order passed by...
Tag this Judgment!P. Jeya Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Joint Secretary (Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad116
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that Memorandum No. 9565/C2/Rev/2000 dated 10.11.2000 issued by the first respondent is unconstitutional and consequently direct the second respondent to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner's son, viz., P.Sivakumar.2. Contempt Petition praying to punish the respondents herein for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order of this Court dated 29.07.2002 made in W.P.M.P. No. 45083 of 2002 in the above writ petition.3. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner would submit that she is an Adi Dravida of Pondicherry origin, born on 14.12.1960 at Nedungadu Salaipet; that her parents also hail from the Union Territory of Pondicherry; that she got married to one Panneerselvam, who is also belonging to the Adi Dravida community and that he is employed in Government service for more than twenty years; that she gave birth to a male child, viz., P.Sivakum...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Ramanathan Vs. K. Geetha Rep. by Power of Attorney M. Sahanawaz S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas1021(Mad); [2006]72SCL394(Mad)
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 1.12.2003 made in I.A.No.50 of 2003 in O.S.No.15 of 2003 by the Court of Prl. Subordinate Judge, Salem.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision coming to be filed before this Court, what comes to be known is that the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2003 before the lower Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,75,225.00 with subsequent interest at 14% per annum from the date of suit till realisation from the defendants, for a personal decree against the defendants 2and 3 for the amount due to the plaintiff and for costs; that the respondent herein has also filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.50 of 2003 praying to issue notice to the petitioners herein calling upon them to furnish security for the suit amount and failure to furnish such security, attach the properties mentioned in the petition before judgment.3. It further comes to be known that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »