Chennai Court February 2008 Judgments
New Kenilworth Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory, Mr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ657
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitioner in these writ petitions is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on the business of establishing, running and managing Hotels, among others. The Government, by G.O.Ms. No. 111 dated 29.04.1993, issued by the Social Welfare Department, has decided to establish a Recreational-cum-Educational Complex and Children World for the welfare of the youth to be set up at Coimbatore and directed the District Collector to identify the location. Ultimately, as per the report of the District Collector, the land measuring 25.19 acres at Vilankurichi Village was found suitable, since the same is nearer to National Highways. The second respondent, Revenue Department, under whom the administration of lands would vest, issued G.O.Ms. No. 900 dated 18.10.1993, for establishment of an Amusement Park in the said location by the Social Welfare Department, viz., the first respondent, since the same is for a public p...
Tag this Judgment!Wipro Limited, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate Rep. by Its Legal Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad165; 2008(3)CTC724; LC2008(2)466; (2008)3MLJ1; 2008(37)PTC269(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Appeals admitted.2. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals were finally heard and are being disposed of by this judgment. The issue in these appeals is whether the High Court of Madras has the jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the appellants being C.S. No. 874 of 2007 and C.S. No. 996 of 2007 under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 respectively. We will refer to the appellants as plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants, for the sake of convenience. The learned single Judge rejected the suits on the ground that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and that the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court and that prior leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was also not obtained. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred these appeals which fell for consideration before us.3. C.S. No. 874 of 2007 is f...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Omega Cables Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: [2008]142CompCas468(Mad); (2008)2CompLJ209(Mad)
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. This company petition is filed to wind up the respondent-company and to appoint the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, as the liquidator of the respondent-company.2. The petition averments are as under:The petitioner's original name was M/s. Tata SSL Ltd., and in that name they effected some supplies to the respondent from the year 2001 onwards. In respect of such supplies, the petitioner raised various invoices on the respondent amounting to a sum of Rs. 33,50,386. The petitioner also raised interest debit note No. 9037 dated July 18, 2001, for Rs. 4,99,014. Against the said amount, the respondent effected only part payment of Rs. 4,54,542.81 and still a sum of Rs. 31,51,399 remain due and payable by the respondent. By a scheme of amalgamation Tata SSL Ltd., merged with Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., which was sanctioned by the Bombay High Court on April 3, 2003, in C. P. No. 100 of 2003. As per the scheme, all the assets and the liabilities of Tata SSL Ltd., ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Retnaswamy Vs. A. Raja and Venkatasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CTC1; (2008)3MLJ638
M. Venugopal, J.1. O.S.A. No. 90 of 2002 is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff as against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the suit for specific performance in C.S. No. 80 of 1997 dated 04.09.2001.2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit C.S. No. 80 of 1997 praying for the relief of directing the respondents/ defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of appellant/plaintiff in terms of sale agreement dated 10.07.1996.3. The first respondent/defendant has not appeared in person or through his counsel. The second respondent/second defendant contested the matter. After contest, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion in the suit that the appellant/plaintiff has not proved Ex. P.1-Agreement dated 10.07.1996 as a true, genuine and valid document etc. and resultantly, held that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance as per Ex. P.1-Agreement dated 10.07.1996 and...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Surekha Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ837
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard Mr. C. Ramakrishna, the learned Counsel for Mr. K. Viswanath, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the notice, dated 18.8.1997, issued by the third respondent in Ref. No. I No. 20/B1/97, calling upon the petitioner to pay a penalty of 10 times the deficit stamp duty, under Section 40(1)(b) of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 24 of 1975, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to direct the third respondent to register the sale deed presented, on 29.3.1996 and to return the same after the completion of the necessary formalities.3. One of the main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the third respondent had imposed the penalty of 10 times the deficit s...
Tag this Judgment!Manikandan and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ1203; 2009(3)SLJ259(NULL); 2008(5)AIRKarR61
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Finding a conflict of opinion between the judgment of a Division Bench in P. Virabhagu v. Union of India , which was followed by another Division Bench in an unreported decision in K. Ram Prasad v. State of Tamil Nadu decided on 06.12.2005 in W.P. No. 21671 of 2005 and W.A. No. 1963 of 2005 on the one hand and the decision of the latest Division Bench in T. Sekar v. Secretary to Government : (2007)1MLJ510 on the other hand, Justice P. Jyothimani sought a reference of the following issues to the Full bench;i. Whether the acquittal or discharge of a person in a criminal case on benefit of doubt would amount to a stigma on the life of a person so as to make him ineligible as per Rule 14(b), Explanation-1 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Rules?ii. Whether the non-disclosure of involvement in a criminal case, which has ultimately ended in acquittal, but in some cases disclosed after acquittal, can be a ground for disqualifying the persons concerned ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopal and S. Baskar Vs. T.V. Paramasivam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC400; (2008)5MLJ29
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. CRP (NPD). No. 3992 of 2007 is arisen out of the judgment in RCA. No. 252 of 2006 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, under which the order passed in RCOP. No. 1900 of 2003 by the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, was challenged. RCOP. No. 1900 of 2003 on the file of the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, was filed by the landlord/respondent herein under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the RCOP, against which the landlord preferred an appeal in RCA. No. 252 of 2006 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Cause, Chennai). The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority while confirming the findings of the learned Rent Controller in respect of the dismissal of RCOP under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act has allowed the appeal under Section 10(3)...
Tag this Judgment!M. Palani Vs. Meenakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad162
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The present Revision Is directed against the order of the II Additional Family Court dated 6-11-2007 made In I.A. No. 2325 of 2007 in O.S. No. 101 of 2007.2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above referred suit and the defendant thereon is the respondent. The petitioner laid the suit against the respondent before the above referred Court for declaration that he and the respondent herein are not married to each other and for consequential injunction restraining her from representing and receiving the benefits as his wife and for costs. In the said proceeding, the respondent had taken out an application in I.A. No. 2325 of 2007 for maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for food, cloth, shelter and other basic necessities. The said application was filed under Section 20 read with Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said application by an order dated 6-11 -2007, the learned Judge of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai directed t...
Tag this Judgment!Murray and Co. Rep. by Its Partner S. Sujan Gangadhar Vs. Appellate Au ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ639
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgement and decree of the first respondent, the Appellate Authority, passed under Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (Central Act 40 of 1971) in CMA. No. 72 of 2005 dated 25.01.2006, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, South Zone, Chennai dated 10.05.2005, from the premises situate at No. 149, 151, 151-A, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.2. The petitioner, which is a Partnership Firm is carrying on Auctioneer profession. The petitioner has administrative office at No. 340, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001 and its place of auction, show room and godown are situate at No. 149 and 151, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002, in an extent of 5005 sq.ft. and in No. 151-A, Anna Salai in an extent of 583 sq.ft. The property originally belonged to M/s. Kushaldas & Sons, from whom the petitioner obtained lease on 01.03.1930 and put up supe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Swasan Chemicals (M) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Mad)542; [2008]300ITR115(Mad); (2008)14VST486(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Assessee Company is engaged in manufacturing plastic powder out of plastic granules. During the relevant assessment year is 2002-03, the assessee company claimed deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the premise that the goods produced by the Assessee company is a product of manufacturing activities, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the activities undertaken by the Assessee in producing the plastic powder would not amount to manufacture. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, after elaborately considering the process carried out by the assessee/appellant in producing the end product plastic Alloy powder has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80IA as the goods produced by the assessee/appellant is the outcome of the manufacturing process. The appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal is ended in dismissal. The correctness of the same is now canvassed before this...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »