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.
S. Sivagnanam Vaidyar, Ravichandra Pharmacy Vs. the Government of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ539
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioner manufactures ayurvedic preparations and claims to be a hereditary Vaidyar. He had earier prepared Dasamoolarishtam, Abhayarishtam, Amritharishtam and Kalyanakudam. Now, he is preparing Kanakasavam and Jeerakarishtam. He claims that they are all 'unrestricted preparations' and are not found in the list of 'restricted preparations' given in the Schedule to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Rules (Rules in short). In Kanyakumari District, from which the petitioner hails, the ayurvedic preparations are mainly unrestricted preparations since manufacture of restricted preparations involves expenditure. Restricted preparations are mainly manufactured by big pharmaceutical companies and the process involves distillation or addition of alcohol. The unrestricted preparations of the petitioner are manufactured using medicinal plant parts such as leaves, stems, seeds, fruits, roots, nuts, etc. and by adding water and by keeping the mixture under fermen...
Dr. Anji Reddy Vs. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Rep. by Constituted Att ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: LC2007(1)202; 2007(34)PTC585(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J1.This appeal has been filed under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.9.1998 in Trade Mark Appeal No. 1 of 1996. Such appeal has been filed against the order dated 1.8.1995, passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks directing registration of the present appellant's Application No. 443573 in respect of Trademark 'Novigan' in class-5 regarding medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation. Under the said order, the present respondent's objection for registration was rejected.2. The present respondent is the owner of the registered trademark 'Novalgin' registered under Registration No. 148999 in class-5 in respect of pharmaceutical preparation. The present respondent in its objection had opposed the registration on the ground that the trademark applied for by the present appellant was deceptively similar to the trademark registered by the present respondent in respect of the same class of goods. Th...
Rajamani Fabrics and Swathi Textiles Vs. Mothi Textiles
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: LC2007(1)150; 2006(33)PTC694(Mad)
M. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondent. By consent of the counsels appearing for the appellants as well as for the respondent, all the appeals have been taken up together for hearing and a common judgment is passed.2. The respondent herein had filed C.S. No. 581 of 2000 before this Court under Order IV, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 105 and 106 of the Trade Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Sections 51, 58, 62 and 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957, praying for the grant of a Judgment and decree on the following terms:a) A perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their partners, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered Trade Mark MOTHI LABEL by use of Tra...
White Horse Communication Network Rep. by Its Managing Partner R. Raje ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1297
ORDERD. Murugesan. J. 1. The issue raised in all these writ petitions and writ appeals are common for the disposal of both the writ petitions and writ appeals. We refer the averments made in the writ petition.2. W.P. No. 318 of 2004 was filed by one Mr. K.S. Kumararaja, Sole Proprietor, City Advertising Systems, Chennai questioning the tender notification published in Dina Bhoomi daily dated 31.12.2003. By the said tender notification, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Chennai the second respondent in the writ petition called for tenders from intending buyers for location of bus shelters on the road margins, within the city of Chennai. The very same petitioner also filed W.P. No. 34872 of 2003, questioning the order dated 7.11.2003 of the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, the first respondent informing the petitioner that the construction and maintenance of bus shelters in Chennai city is being dealt with by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation and therefore, the pe...
V. Selladurai, S/O. Veerapan Vs. N. Nethaji, S/O. Natesan and Thanthi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ680
P.K. Misra, J1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- from three defendants jointly and severally as damages on the allegation that a defamatory notice was published at the instance of Defendant No. 1 in the newspaper 'Daily Thanthi' belonging to Defendant No. 2 of which Defendant No. 3 was the Editor, Printer and Publisher.2. The allegation in the plaint is to the effect that Defendant No. 1, who had offered to supervise the construction of a Guest House for the plaintiff, who is an exporter of Tamil feature films to Sri Lanka, had been given an imprest cash of Rs. 3,78,000/- for purchase of materials. According to the plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 was liable to refund a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and when the plaintiff broached the subject, Defendant No. 1 abused and assaulted the plaintiff for which he had preferred a complaint with Aranthangi Police and a case has been registered as C.C. No. 1001 of 2001 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Aranth...
Anil Kumar Forma (Huf) and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)246; [2007]289ITR245(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 21.7.2006 made in I.T.A. Nos. 2946 to 2951/Mds/2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench, raising the following common substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that in acquisition proceedings of land belonging to the assessee made by the State Government, the amounts received as per interim conditional orders of the Court when the appeal by the State objecting to the enhancement of compensation was pending were liable to tax?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Section 45(5)(c) of the Income-tax Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004 is applicable for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not referring to and not following the decision...
Krishnamurthy and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G. Raji and the Gene ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC620; 2007ACJ2299; 2006(4)CTC733
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 23.11.1998 in MACT. O.P. No. No. 578/96 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Hosur.2. The main submission put forth by the appellants is that the Tribunal has found that the claimant, the first respondent herein had contributed to the accident and fixed the ratio of negligence on his part as 50% and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the first appellant, the owner of the car, with whom, the first respondent / claimant was working as a driver. 3. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tanjore v. Natarajan and Ors. reported in 2004 (2) TN MAC 28 . Admittedly, the Tribunal has fixed the ratio of contributory negligence at 50% on the first respondent / claimant and no appeal has been filed a...
Sri Rajalakshmi Stores Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: (2009)24VST123(Mad)
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in jaggery.2. It is paying tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and is also covered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, 'the CST Act').3. The respondents are the Union of India, State of Tamil Nadu, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Commercial Tax Officer, Salem.4. The prayer of the petitioner is to restrain the fourth respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Gugai Circle, Salem from levying and collecting one per cent Central sales tax, on inter-State sale of jaggery and gur including jaggery powder and nattusakkarai, as it is exempted.5. The contention of the petitioner is that the jaggery is exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST) from July 17, 1996. Hence the petitioner is claiming the benefit of Section 8(2A) of the CST Act, as it is exempted under the State Act.6. Thus, the basis for the claim of exemption is that as per ...
K.M. Valliapan S/O. Kumarappan Vs. Joint Director of School Education, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC471; (2006)4MLJ1129; 2007(3)SLJ282(NULL)
P.K. Misra, J.1. Learned single Judge has referred W.P. No. 8335 of 2003 to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict of views between various decisions of this Court on the question relating to holding of disciplinary proceedings by School Committee as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act).2. Learned single Judge in his order of reference has referred to decisions of this Court in (i) P.S. Venkataramanujam v. National High School - W.A. No. 170 of 1978 dated 13.11.1979 (D.B.); (ii) P. Kasilingam v. Bharathiyar University and Ors. 1990 I LLJ 73 (D.B.); (iii) C. Ranganathan v. President/Secretary of the School Committee, Maruthamalal Sri. Subramania Swamy Devathanam and Anr. 1997 2 L.W. 872; and (iv) Management of M.G.R. Higher Secondary School, Kodambakkam v. NAG Balaji Singh and Ors. 1998 WLR 769 wherein it has been held that disciplinary enquiry can be held only by the School Committee as envisaged under the Act and su...
M. Lakshmi and O. Manickam Vs. D. Chandran and Oriental Insurance Comp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC618; 2007ACJ1173; 2006(5)CTC46
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above appeal has been filed by the claimants in MCOP No. 2053 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge of Small Causes), Chennai. The appellants filed the claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards death of their Son M. Saravanakumar, who was aged 16 years on the date of the accident viz., 09.05.1996.2. According to the claimants, their son had studied upto 9th standard and in proof of the same Ex.A.1 was marked. The Tribunal on consideration of various decisions cited before it, has awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. On not being satisfied with the award, the above appeal has been filed. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants by relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in IV (2005) ACC 15 in the case of Manju Devi and Anr. v. Musafir Paswan and Anr., submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-.4. When the case was called, the counsel for the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »