Chennai Court September 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nalli Sambasivam and Smt. Nalli Duraiswamy Saroja Vs. the Deputy Regis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: LC2007(1)210; 2007(34)PTC553(Mad)
V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Judge in T.M.A. No. 7 & 8 of 1993, upholding the orders of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, dated 30-6-1993, rejecting the Interlocutory Applications filed by the appellants for taking on record their notices of opposition to the registration of a trade mark.2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are as follows:(a) In the edition of the Trade Marks Journal dated 16-7-1992, an advertisement was published, proposing to register a Trade Mark named as 'Nalli' in respect of Textile piece goods including sarees, dhotis etc., in class 24.(b) The appellants herein filed individual Notices of opposition dated 21-11-1992 in Form TM-5 along with applications in Form TM-44 for extension of time for giving the notices of opposition. The application in Form TM-44 was necessitated on account of the fact that Section 21(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 prescribed a time limit of 3 mo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lotte India Corporation Ltd., (Formerly ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)543; [2007]290ITR248(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 12.10.2005 made in I.T.A. No. 270/Mds/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 10.11.2000 and confirming the order of the assessment dated 10.3.2000 made by the Assessing Officer holding that interest on debentures and corporate borrowings is an allowable deduction, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras : [1966]60ITR52(SC) .2.1. The facts in a nutshell are that the Assessing Officer while completing assessment for the assessment year 1997-98 allowed the claim of the assessee with respect of Rs. 1,26,06,781/- being the interest on debenture and inter corporate dividends, but disallowed other claims of the assessee.2.2. Aggrieved by the disallowed portion of the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner o...
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dalmia Cements (B) Limited and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(111)ECC735; 2006LC735(Madras)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These appeals are directed against the orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 24.2.2004 and 20.2.2004 made in Final Order Nos. 167 and 166 of 2004 respectively, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Trichirapalli, who held that the first respondent is not eligible for Cenvat credit on the explosives inasmuch as they were used outside their factory.2.1. The first respondent/Company, which manufactures cement, availed Cenvat Credit on explosives used in their mines situated outside the factory as follows:(i) under Rule 57AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and subsequently under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 for the period from April, 2000 to September, 2001 to the extent of Rs. 5,91,932/- in the case of C.M.A. No. 3389 of 2004; and(ii) under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for the period from April, 2002 to September, 2002 to the extent of Rs. 2,49,563/- in the...
State Rep. by G.M., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., Madurai Divisio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ407Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Siva Manogaran, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.2. The present appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge upholding the contentions of the writ petitioner regarding the applicability of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Brief facts are as follows:The respondent herein was appointed as Conductor under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai (Division-IV) (the present appellant). Subsequently, such person had to undergo hip replacement. Due to such hip replacement, the employee was unable to perform the duty as Conductor. At that stage, the Management issued notice to the said employee to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service on account of disability. Such notice was challenged by the employee and under the impugned order, the learned single Judge has extended the b...
Mr. M. Dhanasekaran Vs. Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd. Rep. by Its Chairm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC596
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. O.A. No. 643 and 644 of 2006 are filed by the applicant/plaintiff to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing and interfering with the peaceful possession of the applicant in the suit property and from alienating, leasing or dealing in any manner of the suit: property, A. No. 2946 of 2006 is filed by the 2nd defendant to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 17,08.2006 in 0.A. No. 644 of 2006.2. The above Original Applications are filed by the mortgagor of a property situate in No. 76 (Old No. 11-B), Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai-18, which was constructed in ground plus two floors with plinth area of 2550 sq.ft. The remedy sought for is to grant interim injunction against alienation and any encumbrance in the above property. The 1 st respondent is a Nidhi and the 2nd respondent is the purchaser in the public auction held on 27.03.2003. The mortgage was dated 01.08.1994 for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs upon the above ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: [2008]306ITR157(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1302/Mds/2003 dated February 8, 2006.2. The Revenue is the appellant. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee's claim with respect to deduction under Section 80HHC by not considering the excise duty and sales tax receipts as part of the turnover was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the excise duty and sales tax receipts from the total turnover. On appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the following substantial question of law :Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was ri...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. N. Ramajeyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC573
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore dated 13.4.2005 in MACTOP No. 1044 of 2004, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division, has filed this appeal.2. In respect of death of one Karthi k in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 8.1.2004, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein parent-claimants, prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, after finding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle concerned, passed an award for Rs. 2,91,000 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Questioning the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.3. The contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by the Counsel.4. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly states that they are mainly aggrieved only with regard to the quantum ...
Management of Tulya Alloy Castings Limited. Vs. A.M. Dhandapani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR611]; (2006)4MLJ709
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Tulya Alloy Castings Limited, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, dated 24.1.2006 raising the question of maintainability of the review petitions, has filed the above revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Brief facts are as follows:(a) The first respondent in both revisions, one A.M. Dhandapani was a worker of the petitioner, Tulya Alloy Castings Limited. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service on 08.10.1988. By common award dated 25.09.1992, passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No. 278 of 1989 and C.P. No. 224 of 1989, the Labour Court declared his dismissal from service as illegal and ordered re-instatement with continuity of service and full backwages and further directed to pay Rs. 870/- as bonus to him for the year 1987-1988. The said common award was published in the Government gazette dated 03.12.1992. (b) Against the said common award, the petitioner Management filed Writ Petition Nos. 3215 and 321...
Muthusamy Gounder Vs. Mylsamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad50; 2006(5)CTC433
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Civil Revision is directed against the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and measure the properties fully described in the schedule with the help of a Surveyor and to file a detailed report with plan.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:(i) The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 289 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his possession thereof. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment and decree dated 18.04.2001, the District Munsif, Pollachi had decreed the suit in part, granting a decree for declaration of his title. Insofar as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the Court held that the respondent/plaintiff had not proved his claim for possession ...
Murugesan Vs. Alamelu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC84; (2006)4MLJ919
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dismissing the petition for withdrawal of the suit. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction with respect to the suit properties in O.S. No. 623 of 1999. The suit was partly decreed and partly dismissed. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 623 of 1999, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an Appeal. Pending appeal, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit with the same cause of action. The reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition was that there is flaw in the description of the properties in the original suit as well as in the appeal and that even if the appeal is decided in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, it will not be fruitful to him. The decree of the Lower Court with the existing description of property will not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »