Chennai Court April 2006 Judgments
Apex Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Zuventus Health Care Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ657; 2006(33)PTC492(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Apex Laboratories Limited, the appellant herein are the manufacturers of pharmaceutical products and have adopted the trademark 'Zincovit' on 16.03.1988 for their product viz., syrup and tablets and have also applied for its registration as a proposed mark and obtained registration of the Trade mark, which has been renewed and is in force. It is claimed that they have filed a number of suits against infringement of their trademark 'Zincovit' and have also obtained injunction orders. Sometime during February, 2006, it came to the knowledge of the appellants that the respondents are manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products under the trade mark 'Zinconia'. The appellant's claim is that the respondents are guilty of infringement of the trademark and also of passing off. Therefore, they filed C.S. No. 216 of 2006 and applied for injunction in O.A. Nos. 244 and 245 of 2006.2. The respondents resisted the application claiming that there are several registered ow...
Tag this Judgment!The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vignesh Flat Housing Promoters
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: (2007)105ITD359(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the deletion of penalty amounting to Rs. 1,65,85,000/- levied Under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and relates to the block period from 1.4.1988 to 2.9.1998.2. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The assessee is a firm comprising of 4 partners. It is engaged in the business of real estate. The firm is constructing and selling flats at Trichy. Search and seizure operations Under Section 132 of the Act were conducted in the business premises of the assessee as well as the residential premises of its partners. During the course of search certain books of account and diaries were found and seized. In response to notice issued Under Section 158BC on 4.1.1999 assessee filed its block Return on 15.3.2000 declaring undisclosed income at Rs. 59,07,160/-. AO finalized the block assessment proceedings on 29.7.2000 determining the tota...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanthilal M. Munoth and ors. Vs. Mr. M. Durairajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas797(Mad); 2006(33)PTC330(Mad)
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 21983 of 2004 are the accused 2 to 5 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 15159 of 2004 is the sixth accused in C.C. No. 295 of 2004 on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, launched as against them for the offences under Sections 406 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. 2. The averment in brief as found in the private complaint filed by the complainant Mr. Durairajan, General Manager of M/s. Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd., under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows:- The complainant-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and after sale services in the range of kitchen appliances including mixer grinders under the popular brand name of 'PREETHI'. All the products of the complainant-company meet international quality and safety standards certified by various international certifying bodies. The products of the complain...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Lachhman P. Udhani, Vs. Redington (India) Ltd., Represented by Mr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC159; [2006]133CompCas855(Mad); 2006CriLJ3076; 2006(4)CTC43
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petitioners are the accused 2,3 and 5 in C.C. Nos. 4011, 4012 and 4013 of 2002 pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, launched as against them and others for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent-complainant.2. The respondent-complainant, have alleged that the petitioners and others, who are the Directors of M/s. Gallant Computers Pvt Ltd., placed orders for the purpose of computer peripherals and accessories and towards the outstanding amounts payable for purchase of the said materials. The sixth accused and the fourth accused issued cheques in their capacity as Directors of the first accused-company. When the cheques were presented for collection, those cheques were returned with an endorsement 'Exceeds Arrangement'. After issuing statutory notice, the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed as against the first accused-company and the Di...
Tag this Judgment!Gowri Ammal Vs. Murugan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ729
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question posed before this Bench, as referred to by Justice P. Sathasivam, the learned single Judge, is as follows:After dismissal of the earlier petition for non-compliance of the conditional order within the time stipulated, whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for extension of time, filed under Section 148 read with Section 151 CPC ?2. The short facts are as follows:(i) Murugan and others, respondents herein, are the plaintiffs. They filed a suit in O.S. No. 16 of 1999, for partition and separate possession.(ii) Gowri Ammal, petitioner herein, is the second defendant, and she purchased the suit property from one Dhanapal Gounder, first defendant, who is the father of respondents 1 to 3 and husband of fourth respondent, in the year 1989, through a registered sale deed. (iii) On 20.09.1999, the suit was decreed ex parte as against the second defendant, petitioner herein. She came to know about the ex parte decree only when a not...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasamy Vs. Selvambal and Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ753
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 615 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Villupuram is the appellant in this second appeal. The said suit has been filed by the Plaintiff/first respondent herein praying for (i) directing the petitioner to sue as an indigent person; (ii) directing the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month towards maintenance by creating a charge over B Schedule Described property (iii) directing the first respondent to pay Rs.18,000/- towards arrears of maintenance with a charge over the B Schedule properties; and (iv) directing the first respondent to pay the court fee payable on the plaint to the Government and for costs. The trial court dismissed the suit and on appeal, the first appellate court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court, hence the present second appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.3. The case of the plaintiff/fir...
Tag this Judgment!R. Lingan Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC512; (2007)1MLJ527
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to Roc.1825/97(A3), dated 11.2.2003, quash the same and direct the respondent to issue a community certificate to the daughter of the petitioner by name Bagyalakshmi and to his grand daughter Naveenasri that they are belonging to 'Kurichchan' which comes under the category of Scheduled Tribe.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to 'Kurichchan' community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. In the Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued to the petitioner in the year 1959, his community has been entered as 'Kurichchan'. The Tahsildar, Hosur, had issued a community certificate to the petitioner as early as 23.9.1963 certifying that he belongs to 'Kurichchan' community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. Even in the Service Book of the petitioner, his community has been mentioned as 'Kurichchan'. In the Transfer Certificate issued to the petitioner on 1....
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Goundar and Kishtan Vs. Balakrishna Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC413
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The appellants are the father and son who are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 189 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Arni.2. The appellants filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of 6/8 share and for allotting three such shares to the share of Ellammal, the 11th respondent herein, vendor of the plaintiffs and to allot the remaining share from the other items of the suit properties. The respondents/defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the issues and the learned Principal District Munsif perused the evidence and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellants herein preferred the appeal before the Subordinate Court, Arni in A.S. No. 39 of 1992. Learned Subordinate Judge after perusing the recorded evidence in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the tria...
Tag this Judgment!Selvaraj Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Education Depar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ797
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. One Selvaraj, a Post Graduate in Computer Science, has filed this petition as Public Interest Litigation, seeking to quash the tender issued by the General Manager, Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (ELCOT), Chennai 600 035, 4th respondent herein in Tender No. GM (PID) CEP-V/HSS/01/2006 dated 30th January, 2006 and direct Government of Tamil Nadu, Director of School Education, respondents 1 and 2 herein to direct the third respondent, the Director of Teacher Recruitment Board, Chennai 600 006, to recruit the post of Junior Post Graduate Assistant Grade I in Computer Science in various School at Tamil Nadu through the Teacher Recruitment Board.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:(a) According to the petitioner, he finished his B.Sc.[Computer Science] in Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli in the year 1997. In 2001, he passed M.Sc. [Computer Science] in the same University in First Class. He also completed B.Ed. in Madras Un...
Tag this Judgment!N. Nandagopalan Vs. the Secretary to Government Personnel and Administ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ191
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the punishment of cut in pension of Rs.200/- per month for 12 months passed by the respondent herein in his G.O.2(D) No. 56, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, dated 11.09.1998 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is that the petitioner while working in Rural Development Department, was placed under suspension on 29.07.1989 on the ground that an enquiry into grave charge is contemplated. On 23.01.1990 in G.O.Ms. No. 43, the Government had reviewed the order of suspension and ordered that the petitioner should be under suspension as an enquiry is still in progress. On 30.04.1990, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Government for revocation of suspension. In G.O.Ms. No. 570, Rural Development Department, dated 10.07.1990, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reverted to Secretariat for bein...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »