Chennai Court September 2008 Judgments

Indian Overseas Bank, K. Abishekapuram Branch Rep. by the Authorized O ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad10

ORDERT. Sudanthiram, J.1. This petition is filed praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli dated 11.12.2007 in Crl.M.P. No. 1472 of 2007.2. The petitioner herein is Indian Overseas Bank, a nationalised bank, who is a secured creditor. The first respondent herein is a public limited company, who is a principal borrower and the second respondent is the Managing Director and the third respondent is the Director and also the guarantor and the fourth respondent viz., the Inspector of Police, Thuvakudi Police Station is an unnecessary party.3. The petitioner herein filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli for taking possession of secured assets under Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as SARFAESI Act). As the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli had dismissed the said applicatio...

Indian Bank, Vs. V.G.P. Finance Ltd. and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas802(Mad); (2008)8MLJ468

M. Chocklingam, J.1. This appeal has arisen from an order of the learned single judge of this Court made in C.A. No. 1275 of 1999 in C.P. No. 201 of 1996 (V.G.P. Finances Ltd. v. Official Liquidator [2005] 127 Comp Cas 1.The case of the first respondent/applicant is as follows:The applicant is a secured creditor of Neptune Inflatables Ltd., which was wound up as per the order of the court dated March 10, 1999. When the said company approached the applicant for loan facilities, the applicant had extended the same to the tune of Rs. 65.20 lakhs. The company in liquidation had mortgaged the schedule mentioned property. The charge created was duly informed to the Registrar of Companies, and the same was registered also. At that juncture, the company in liquidation wanted to sell the property in order to discharge the portion of the credit facilities out of commercial compulsion. Accordingly, the company had conveyed the property to the applicant by way of two sale deeds dated February 11, ...

Padmavathi Vs. Kaveriammal

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(1)CTC58

S. Palanivelu, J.1. The following are the allegations succinctly, as per the petition under Section 47 of C.P.C.: 1. (i) One Ammaniammal filed O.S. No. 1093 of 1990 against two sons by name Ponnusamy and Varadharajan and daughter Kavariammal, the respondent herein. The Trial Court viz., Sub Court, Coimbatore, passed a preliminary decree on 07.02.1995 for partition of the suit property into eight equal divisions and to allot 5 shares to the plaintiff Ammaniammal. The shares of Ammaniammal alone were declared. The respondent who was defendant in the suit, remained ex-parte and there was no allotment of share in her favour. Ammaniammal died on 28.1.1999. The respondent filed an application under Order 20, Rule 18(2) of C.P.C. for passing a final decree wherein the prayer is as per affidavit to allot 5/8 shares to her as per preliminary decree along with 1/4 of her alleged share in the suit property totalling 7/8th share in the suit property in her favour. The said prayer is in contraventi...

Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Hyundai Motor Plaza Chennai Vs. Mrs. Ushara ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. Appellant is the 2nd opposite party, the 1st respondent is the complainant, 2nd respondent is the 1st opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is filed before the District Forum under the following circumstances. The complainant purchased a Santro Car for a sum of Rs.2.95 lakhs from the opposite parties during November 1998. 1st opposite party is a dealer and the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the car. 2nd opposite party undertook the servicing of the car. 2nd opposite party also offered a warranty for a period of two years initially, which was later on extended by one more year. According to the complainant, ever since the date of purchase of vehicle, she has been noticing certain defects, which are promptly reported to the 2nd opposite party. Inspite of such reporting and the rectification being done by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant was forced to approach the 2nd opposite party repeatedly for very same defects....

S. Mira Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Mr. Farook Shabbir ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(134)ECC199; 2008(160)LC199(Madras); 2009(235)ELT423(Mad); (2009)1MLJ846

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The prayer in all these writ petitions is for declaring the policy condition imposed by the Director General of Foreign Trade vide its notification No. 15 (RE-2008)/2004-2009, dated 04.06.2008, insofar as it restricts the free trade of Betal nuts for a value of Rs. 35/ per kilo gram including C.I.F. value (Cost, Insurance and Freight) by notification dated 04.06.2008 as unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under the Constitution.2. Since the questions raised in all these writ petitions are one and the same, they were all heard together and a common order is passed.3. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for all the petitioners and Mr. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar learned Assistant Solicitor General and perused the records.4. At the time of admission in all these cases, interim orders were granted. It is only when the second respondent filed a vacate stay application supported by a counter affidavit, the matter was taken up for ...

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissione ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR635]; (2009)ILLJ257Mad

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited assailed the order of the Writ Court dated June 14, 2002 made in W.P. No. 2467/1990, wherein and whereby the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated December 1/4 1989 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to in short 'P.F. Act') directing the appellant to remit certain sum to the respective employees' provident fund accounts.2. Mr. Vijay Narayanan, learned senior 5 counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the benefit extended to the workmen by virtue of the settlement under Sections 12(3) and 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Chief Labour Commissioner dated 10 May 10, 1999 would not form part of basic wages as defined in Section 2(b) of the Provident ...

S. Sridevi Vs. T. Rajasubramanian

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)8MLJ29

M. Venugopal, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the Family Court, Madurai in H.M.O.P. No. 352 of 2006 resultantly allowing the petition filed by the respondent/petitioner.2. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Family Court, Madurai dated 28.09.2007 in H.M.O.P. No. 352 of 2006, the appellant/respondent (wife) has projected this appeal before this Court.3. The essential facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as below:The respondent/petitioner and the appellant/respondent are Hindus and their marriage took place on 07.09.2001 in accordance with Hindu Vedic Rites and Customs at Thiru Subbaraya Kalyana Mahal, 105, Railway Feeder Road, Tenkasi. The marriage was an arranged one. The marriage expenses were shared by both parties. The respondent/petitioner hails from a cultured, highly educated broad minded family and neither himself nor his parents demanded any dowry in cash or kind either prior or s...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.K. Exports

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]319ITR442(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue filed the appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'A' Bench, dated October 13, 2004, in I.T.A. Nos. 1370 and 1371/Mds/2004 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 and Madras 'B' Bench dated March 20, 2008, in I.T.A. No. 606/Mds/2006 for the assessment year 1999-2000 by formulating the following questions of law:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the transfer of the right to exhibit the films, as a sale of goods or merchandise for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a transaction for transfer of exploitation rights, entered into in India can be eligible for the benefit of Section 80HHC only because the consideration was received in foreign exchange?2. The facts of the case as stated in the memorandum of grounds of appeals are as follows:(i) The a...

Bharat Matrimony Com. P. Ltd. Vs. People Interactive (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad78; 2009(41)PTC709(Mad)

ORDER1. These applications are filed seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing of copyrights and from passing off their 'Phone Validation Services' as that of the plaintiffs service.2. The applicants/plaintiffs have contended in their applications that the applicant, who is a pioneer for matrimonial alliance, created a system; 'Assured Contact-Phone Verification Service' through its employees during the course of employment. The application plaintiff has become the owner and proprietor of the copyright in the system which is inbuilt in the applicant's website. The applicant spent several lakhs of rupees developing and implementing the unique feather 'Assured Contact-Phone Verification Seryics. The unique feature has become' synonymous with the applicant's website Bharat Matrimony com. The respondent's website is a direct competitor of the applicant's website under the name 'My Contact Details'. The respondent is offering the very same identical feature t...

The Secretary, Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Villathikulam, Tut ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2, and the 1st Respondent is the complainant. The Respondents 2 to 4 are given up. 2. The above appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum in allowing the complaint. 3. It is the case of the complainant that eventhough a sum of Rs.15000/- was paid by her by way of deposit to the appellants society, which will carry an interest @ 13.5% and when the said deposit matured on 26.2.2004, the appellants have failed to repay the amount and hence the complaint is preferred before the District Forum. 4. The opposite parties/ appellants resisted the complaint on the ground that there is no intention on the part of the society to cheat the complainant. However, due to the fraud committed by the then Secretary and President of the society, the appellants were not in a position to repay the amount of deposit. 5. The District Forum by considering the rival claims has allowed the complaint with a di...