Chennai Court June 2008 Judgments
The Waterbase Limited Rep. by Its General Manager, P.K. Ramachandran V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(121)ECC9; 2008(157)LC9(Madras)
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 19287 of 1996 is for a direction to the second respondent not to invoke 51 Bank Guarantees furnished by the petitioner between 04.02.1994 and 21.12.1994 for the purpose of clearing items of import which were raw materials, components, consumables, packing materials, drawing samples and prototypes related to 100% export oriented activity carried on by the petitioners pursuant to the letter of indent issued by the first respondent.3. In W.P. No. 5128 of 1997, the prayer is for refund of Rs. 11,42,191, which was given as a bank guarantee for the purpose mentioned in the earlier writ petition.4. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Government of India exempted goods specified in Notification No. 13 / Customs _ 81 dated 09.02.1981 when imported into India for the purpose of manufacture of articles for export...
Tag this Judgment!Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)CTC97; LC2008(3)431; (2008)6MLJ1117; 2008(38)PTC341(Mad)
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.1. The orders passed herein will govern the disposal of O.S.A. Nos. 263 and 283 of 2006.For the sake of convenience, the array of parties as referred in C.S. No. 448 of 2006, is adopted here also.The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Original Side Appeals are as follows:One A.R. Safiullah, sole Proprietor and trading as S.A. Safiullah & Company having office at Chennai as well as Pudukottai, has instituted a suit in O.S. No. 488 of 2006 on the file of this Court against Daniel, Proprietor of M/s. Jayam Traders-the first Defendant, M/s. Jayam Industries represented by its partner Tmt. Indira Daniel-second Defendant, M.A. Rajapudeen, Proprietor M/s. Shalimar Traders-third defendant and Mariyappan, trading as Sivagami Agencies, Sivakasi-the fourth Defendant praying for a judgment and decree for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered patent under No. 198079 in respect of 'food-grade l...
Tag this Judgment!Calcium (India) Private Limited Vs. Customs, Excise, Gold (Control) Ap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(234)ELT591(Mad)
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records.2. In W.P. No. 7169 of 1998, the challenge is to the order dated 10.11.1997 passed by the Customs, Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'CEGAT'], South Zonal Bench, Chennai. In W.P. No. 7170 of 1998, the challenge is to the order signed on 23.5.1997 and dispatched to the petitioners on 19.9.1997.3. The petitioner Company is a Private Limited Company and was incorporated in the year 1977. It commenced manufacture of Calcium Gluconate from the year 1977. It had a tie-up with M/s Sandoz India Ltd.4. During the year 1979, the individual Directors of the petitioner company promoted another company called the Global Calcium India (Pvt.) Ltd. for the manufacture of Calcium Gluconate and Calcium Lactobionate with a tie-up with M/s Glaxo India Ltd. During 1991, they also started Calcitech India Pvt. Ltd. Which started manufacture of similar range of products for export....
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Limited Represented by the Divisional Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)8MLJ732
M. Venugopal, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/second respondent, M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited represented by the Divisional Manager, Palayamkottai, as against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, dated 16.03.2004, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1024 of 2003, awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,12,600/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Six Hundred only) along with interest at 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment and directing the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company and the third respondent/first respondent (owner of the vehicle), to pay the same jointly and severally.2. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/second respondent has projected the present appeal before this Court.3. The respondents 1 and 2/claimants being the parents of the deceased Avudaiappan @ Kumar have preferred a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 1024 of 2003 on ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Vijaya Vs. P. Ganeshwari and the Election Officer/Panchayat Union C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CTC663
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.11.2007 in I.A. No. 112 of 2007 in El.O.P. No. 10 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the above revision are as under:(i) The revision petitioner was a candidate in the election held on 18.10.2006 for the post of President in the Allikulam Panchayat. In the said election, the revision petitioner was declared as Elector. Subsequently, the first respondent filed El.O.P. No. 10 of 2007 before the learned Principal District Judge as provided under Rule 122 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995. The election petition was taken on file and notice was issued to the respondent and accordingly, the respondent entered appearance.(ii) During the pendency of the election petition and immediately on appearance, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 112 of 2007 to reject the origina...
Tag this Judgment!P. Pandiammal, Vs. Anand and National Insurance Company Limited Throug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)7MLJ996
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.01.2007 in MACOP. No. 186 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar.2. This case is a glaring example as to how poor petitioners in a motor accident claim could be driven from pillar to post by a Tribunal.3. The claim petition in MACOP. No. 186 of 2006 has been preferred by the petitioners against the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Virudhunagar. In the said application in MACOP. No. 186 of 2006, it was the contention of the revision petitioners that they are the mother, father and sister of the deceased Rajagopal, who died in a motor accident on 12.11.2005 on Kalkuruchi to Aruppukkottai main road near Samathuvapuram involving the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent.4. The claim petition was preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Virudhunagar, as according to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ponramu Vs. B. Usharani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: (2009)1MLJ126
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.12.2006 in I.A. No. 56 of 2006 in O.S. No. 62 of 2005, on the file of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.2. The suit in O.S. No. 62 of 2005 has been preferred by the revision petitioner against the respondents and others praying for a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property and for separate allotment of his share. The said suit was contested by the respondents along with some others.3. Subsequently, the respondents, being the defendants 132, 133, 135 and 136, filed an application in I.A. No. 56 of 2006 invoking Order 7 Rule 11 as well as Section 151 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 62 of 2005. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was the case of the respondents that the revision petitioner had filed a suit earlier in O.S. No. 137 of 1994 for the very same relief and the said suit was dismissed for default and as such, the present suit fo...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi and ors. Vs. N.A. Nasia and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2606
K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. These two civil revisions are directed against the order dated 1.8.2006 in I.A. Nos. 344 and 345 of 2006 in M.C.O.P. No. 878 of 2003, respectively, on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.2. The claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 878 of 2003 has been preferred by the revision petitioners before the trial court against the respondents claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 on account of the death of the breadwinner of the family in the accident that occurred on 23.4.2003 involving the vehicle owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2. Even though the petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 17,05,000, the claim was restricted to Rs. 4,00,000 on account of their inability to pay the court-fee for the same.3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondent No. 2 by filing counter, wherein they have admitted the insurance, but disputed the claim on various grounds including the negligence of the deceased.4. The matter was subsequently poste...
Tag this Judgment!Duraisamy S. and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Anglo French Textiles and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ679Mad
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The first respondent Anglo French Textiles is a Unit of Pondicherry Textile Corporation Limited, Pondicherry, a Company created under the Companies Act and it is a Government of Pondicherry Undertaking. Originally, the Anglo French Textiles Limited was a private concern and was owning a Mill, which was one of the largest Mills in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and it was functioning till July 1983 and thereafter, there was no manufacturing process. Since the efforts of the. Government of Pondicherry to reopen the Mill by negotiations with the private management and the trade Union Leaders foiled, it has promulgated the Anglo French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986 and the Mill was taken over by the Government of Pondicherry with effect from December 24, 1985 by promoting a Government company in the name and Style of Pondicherry Textile Corporation Limited. It is seen from the materials placed on record that the appe...
Tag this Judgment!A. ArulIn Ajitha Rani Vs. Principal and Film and Television Institute ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Mad7
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. Thirumavalavan for the appellant, Mr. S. Rajasekar, Addl. Government Pleader for Respondents and Mrs. Karthika Ashok, who had been appointed as Amicus curiae to assist the Court.2. The appellant was a student in Film Direction and Screenplay writing in M.G.R. Film and Television Institute of Tamil Nadu, which is a Government institute conducting diploma courses in different fields including the Film Direction. The question relates to shortage of attendance of the appellant during the academic session of 2005-2006, between June 2005 and March 2006 to be precise. It is not in dispute that the rules and regulations relating to attendance of class envisage that a student is required to attend 80% of the classes in the year concerned. Regulations 3.2 and 3.3 are as follows:3.2 Requirements to appear for Examination:The Examinations will be conducted at the end of the year for the first year subjects and at the end of each semester for semester subjects by the Boar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »