Chennai Court September 2008 Judgments

Colgate-palmolive (India) Limited Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pr ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)7MLJ1119; 2009(40)PTC653(Mad)

V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. 'Comparison lies at the root of modern advertising' says Cornish, W., in his 'Intellectual Property'(4th Edn., Page 656). In McDonalds v. Burgerking (1986) FSR 45 Whitford J., warned that 'advertisements are not to be read as if they are testamentary provision in a will or a clause in some agreement with every word being carefully considered and the words as a whole being compared'. Yet, comparative advertisements have led to a lot of litigation and the case on hand is one.2. C.S. No. 451 of 2008 has been filed by Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner continuing the telecast of the impugned Television advertisements, filed as plaint document No. 3 in a Compact Disk (CD) or telecasting any other advertisement which is disparaging or slandering the Colgate tooth pastes and for damages to the tune of Rs. 10,01,000/-. Pending suit, the plaintiff has come up with -(i) O.A. No. 493 of 2008 for an inter...

Rediffusion-dentsu, Young and Rubicam P. Ltd. Vs. Solidaire India Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas693(Mad)

1. The challenge is made to an order of dismissal of C.P. No. 25 of 1997 (Rediffusion Dentsu, Young and Rubicam P. Ltd. v. Solidaire India Ltd. : 2003(1)CTC74 filed by the appellant herein seeking a relief of winding up of the respondent- company.2. The case of the appellant/petitioner is as follows:The respondent-company appointed the appellant as its exclusive advertising agent by letter dated April 11, 1994. Pursuant to the same, the appellant provided advertising services to the respondent. For the services rendered between October 1994 and July 1995, a sum of Rs. 74,79,213.81 as on March 31, 1996, was due and payable by the respondent along with interest from April 1, 1996, as per the bills raised by the appellant. When the appellant approached the respondent, they expressed their inability to make payments. As the respondent failed to honour the bills of exchange, the appellant's bank refused to discount further bills of exchange accepted by the respondent. The respondent admitte...

M/S. Southern Constructions Rep. by Its Proprietor Ramadoss, Chennai V ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The above appeal is filed as against the order passed in OP.No.516/2001 dt.19.11.2002 of the District Forum, wherein a direction is given, which is as follows: In the result, the opposite party is directed to provide proportionate undivided share of land to the complainant, after demolishing the 4th floor which was constructed illegally, with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. Time for compliance one month, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take proceedings for arrest of the opposite party under Sec.27 of CP Act. 3. The main grievances of the appellant is to the effect that when the complaint was pending before the District Forum, the complainant has approached the Honble High Court and there are several other subsequent developments including an order of Regularisation passed by the CMDA, and as such the District For...

K. Velayudham Pillai, Vs. T. Velayutham Pillai (Died) (V. Prama Kumari ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ74

A. Selvam, J.1. Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2001 passed in Appeal Suit No. 19 of 1996 by the First Additional Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram.2. The deceased by name Velayuthan as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 6 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants.3. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is originally belonged to the family of the plaintiff. During last settlement in the state of Travancore, patta No. 343 has been given in favour of Chandran Velayuthan, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit property. Till his demise, he has enjoyed the same as absolute owner. After his demise, the suit property and other properties have devolved upon the plaintiff and his brothers. The plaintiff and his brothers have enjoyed the suit property and some other pro...

M. Samayamuthu Vs. the Secretary to the Government, Government of Tami ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ289

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In W.P.(MD). No. 6092 of 2008, the petitioner is the President of Thanjakoor Panchayat, Thirupachethi Post, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.2. In this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the constitutional validity of Section 205 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The petitioner seeks for a direction that the said provision is unconstitutional and not legally valid.3. The cause of action for filing such a writ petition arose when proceedings under Section 205 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act setting out certain financial irregularities against the President (writ petitioner) committed while implementing the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the show cause memo and since the District Collector was not satisfied, the Tahsildar, Manamadurai was directed to convene a meeting on 10.07.2008 to ascertain the views of the members of the Panchayat for taking further action on his explanation. It is at thi...

Commercial Tax Officer Vs. C.P.D. Computer Peripheral Devices Private ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)21VST581(Mad)

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The review application is filed by the Revenue to review the order dated July 24, 2006 made in W.P. No. 2816 of 2006. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent/assessee against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal made in T.A. No. 1320 of 2002 dated October 21, 2005 confirming the order of the lower authorities.2. Before the Division Bench, it was contended by the assessee that the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal Act (Act No. 42 of 1992)(hereinafter called 'the 1992 Act') was repealed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal (Repeal) Act, 2004 (Act No. 34 of 2004)(hereinafter called 'the repeal Act, 2004'). Thereafter there is no forum for hearing the revision. Hence, by way of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution, writ petition is filed, which is maintainable. However, it was contended by the Revenue that in view of the repeal of the Special Tribunal Act, a revision would lie to the High Court under Secti...

Hindustan Photo Films Employees Co-operative Stores Rep. by Its Vice P ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ291Mad

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the award, dated September 18, 2000, passed by the first respondent Labour Court, in I.D. No. 96/1998.3. It has been stated that the petitioner Co-operative stores has been established with the object of serving the employees of Hindustan Photo Films. The second respondent was working in the petitioner company from the month of December, 1989, on daily wages. From the month of April, 1992, he has been paid a consolidated sum of Rs. 750./- per month. After the newly elected office bearers took charge of the administration of the petitioner stores they had taken several measures, including certain measures to curb absenteeism amongst the employees of the stores. Therefore, several initiatives and decisions were taken by new office bearers of the petitioner stores. Taking into accoun...

Senior Post Master Salem Head Post Office Salem and Others Vs. E.R. Se ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The above appeal is filed by the opposite parties, challenging the order passed on 30.08.2007 by the District Forum, Salem in CC.No.54/2005, in allowing the complaint. 2. The Respondent / Complainant has filed the complaint to the effect that the Speed Post Money Order of Rs.5000/- was delivered nearly after 10 days and as such the purpose for which the Money Order was to be utilized could not be utilized in time. According to the complainants, the said amount was required to do immediate scanning to their son, and due to the delay their son has expired. Even though a claim of Rs.3 lakhs was prayed for, the District Forum considering the fact that the opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.255/- for the belated payment, allowed the complaint, wherein a sum of Rs.10000/- was ordered as compensation for mental agony. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no willful negligence or delay on the part of the opposite parties and the pay...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Narayana Gurtuviah Chetty's Estate ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Mad)310

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue on appeals-against the orders of the Tribunal dt. 16th Dec, 2005, in ITA Nos. 1394/Mad/1999, 1480/Mad/2000, 1481/Mad/2000 and 1482/Mad/2000. The relevant assessment years are 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000.2. The assessee trust filed return of income admitting 'nil' income and claimed exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act. The AO denied exemption on the ground that the assessee is running a Kalyana mandapam which is not an activity either as per the objects of the trust or incidental thereto. The Kalyanamandapam was rented out on substantial rent which sustains the commercial nature of the activity. On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the order of the AO placing reliance on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha : [2000]245ITR242(Mad) . The Revenue challenged the order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the various Clauses contained in the will and also following the earlier ...

M/S. Dena Bank, Rep. by Its Branch Manager, Chennai Vs. Mrs. Aswathy M ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

COMMON ORDER N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant herein is the opposite party in the all the three cases before the District Forum and the respondents are the complainants. 2. All the three appeals have filed amongst various grounds. However, a short plea, which is made before this Commission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the District Forum has disposed off the cases when the counsel for the appellant / opposite party was not in a position to advance the arguments. The said fact is not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents / complainants. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of the District Forum without rendering any finding either way with regard to the merits of the case. The District Forum is requested to dispose off the complaints expeditiously in any event not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the order....