Chennai Court June 2009 Judgments

Uas Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd. and Essen Tial Healthcare Vs. Ajantha Ph ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ10; 2009(41)PTC248(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Original Side Appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.7.2008 made in O.A. No. 15 of 2008 in C.S. No. 6 of 2008 non-suiting the appellants for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner passing off and enabling others to pass off the respondent's products as and for the appellants' products by manufacturing, selling, advertising, distributing or offering for sale dermatologic products including sun screen cream by name 'SUNSTOP' or any mark similar thereto pending the suit seeking for the very same prayer.2. The case of the appellants is that the first appellant was floated in Australia for manufacturing and developing dermatologic products in the year 2000. On 17.5.2001 the appellants introduced a product under the trade name 'SUNSTOP' for protection of skin from sunlight and ultraviolet rays. The first plaintiff had obtained Registration of trademark for non-medicinal preparation under class ...

K. Kalaikottudayam and K. Amala Vs. Rajendran

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2010CriLJ681

ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The revision is directed against the dismissal of the petition filed by the second and third accused who are the Directors of the first accused company seeking permission to represent their cases through their representative invoking the provision under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The fact remains that the company, the first accused alongwith these two petitioners has been prosecuted Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These petitioners arrayed as second and third accused filed petition under Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to represent not only the company but also the Managing Director and Director of the company through a representative appointed by them.3. The trial court having thoroughly adverted to the provisions of Section 305 of Code of Criminal Procedure, returned a well considered decision that a company under the provisions of Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can make a re...

R. Gunasekaran Vs. the Officer in Charge Bureau of Naviks,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ362

ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled as coast guard on 26.6.1985. While he was in service, he fell ill on 11.2.1986 and he was admitted to the hospital. On medical examination, it was found out by the Medical Board that he was medically unfit for service with a disability of 100% and the said disability was due to stress and strain attributed to the service. Accordingly, the Board recommended that the petitioner be medically invalidated from service. Based on the said recommendation, he was invalidated and released from service with effect from 12.6.1986. Subsequently, he approached the first respondent to grant him pension. But, by the impugned proceedings dated 20.4.1999, the first respondent has declined. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.2. It is contended by the petitioner that under Rule 38 of the Pension Rules applicable to Central Civil Services, the petitioner is entitled for invalid pension.3. The contention of th...

A. Dhanalakshmi, Vs. the State of Tamill Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ809

ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. Since common issues are involved in all these Writ Petitions, they were heard together and they were disposed of by means of this common order.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 9860 of 1998 is the owner of the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 241/1; 241/2; 241/3; 242/1; 242/2; 242/3; 242/4; 250/1; 263/2; 265/2; 278/1 and 278/4. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P. No. 9861 of 1998 is the owner of the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 261/1A; 282/3; 240/2, 264/2, 264/3; 264/4; 265/1, 266, 268/4 and 275 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 9862 of 1998 is the owner of the lands comprised in Survey No. 242/6 of Perumbakkam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and district.3. For the purpose of constructing Collector's Office and other buildings for Revenue Administration for Tiruvallore District, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 495 Revenue dated 12.6.1998, directing the District Collector to issue Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire these lands by dispensin...

The Commissioner of Income Tax-i Vs. Forbes Tea Brokers

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Mad)174

B. Rajendran, J.1. The revenue is the appellant in all these appeals. As against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 11.08.03, the revenue has filed these appeals.2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that the assessee is a partnership firm purportedly doing business as tea brokers. For the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the assessee claimed deductions for various amounts on account of remuneration paid to a company called M/s. Forbes Ewart & Figgis (P) Ltd., functioning at Cochin for attending auction of tea, tasting and evaluating the samples, managing the affairs of the assessee, etc.,3. The Chief Executive of the assessee firm is one Mr. O. Thomas, who is stationed in Cochin and goes to Coimbatore frequently to attend the auction etc., The Assessing Officer found that in addition to the salary of Rs. 90,000/- per annum paid to Mr.O.Thomas, the assessee has also made ...

K.C. Nanjunda Gowda Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The appellant before us challenges the imposition of penalty of Rs.1 lakh under the provisions of Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case of the department is that M/s.Rahul Global, Bangalore, who had acquired two advance licences issued under the DEEC scheme, imported raw silk duty free and disposed of the same to M/s.KCN Silks, Bangalore, of whom the appellant is the proprietor, in contravention of the condition of Notification No.80/95-Cus., prior to fulfillment of export obligation, and the case of the department against the appellant is entirely based upon the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar of M/s.Ragul Global and Shri Raghavendra. Nothing comes out from the statement either of these two persons regarding either knowledge of the appellant or reasonable belief on the part of the appellant that he was dealing with or in any manner concerned with the goods which he knew or had reasonable belief were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (o). Therefore,...

Premavathi, Vs. Sundararajan,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ560

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. O.P. No. 226 of 1985 filed for issuance of letters of administration of the Will of the testatrix - Kakkammal has been converted into Testamentary Original Suit and numbered as TOS No. 11 of 1987, as the husband of the testatrix questioned the genuineness, execution and attestation of the will. The will has been marked as Ex.P.1. The plaintiff Boopathy Ammal since deceased, who was the daughter of the testatrix, was the sole legatee under the will. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are daughters of the deceased Boopathy Ammal, the legatee under the will. The 5th plaintiff Mallika - one of the daughters of the legattee got married to Balram Reddy, one of the two brothers of Boopathy Ammal, but issueless. The other brother was Booloka Reddy. Both the brothers predeceased Boopathy Ammal. Defendants 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of Boologa Reddy. The first defendant was the husband of the testatrix, who died pending suit. In the suit, Boopathy Ammal was examined on commiss...

G.S.R. Krishnamurthy, Vs. the Income Tax Officer,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Mad)562; [2009]184TAXMAN327(Mad)

ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Challenging and impugning the order order dated 27.9.2007, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,(E.O.I), in Crl.M.P. No. 3367 of 2006 in E.O.C.C. No. 302 of 1984, this criminal revision case is focussed.2. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:The Income Tax Department filed a complaint against the accused, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, E.O.I, who took it on file as E.O.C.C. No. 302 of 1984, for the offence under Sections 120B read with Sections 193, 196, 420, 109, 34 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This case is having a chequered carrier of its own and suffice to say that earlier this Court had occasion to pass order on June 30, 1991 in Crl.M.P. No. 3158 of 1994; when the trial was in progress, the learned Public Prosecutor filed the M.P. No. 3367 ...

Orient Hospital Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]185TAXMAN83(Mad)

B. Rajendran, J.1. The assessee has preferred the appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in ITA. No. 2323/Mds/2004 dated 15.9.2006.2. (i) The assessee company has constructed an hospital building and it was running the hospital from the assessment year 1991-92 to 1997-98. As the assessee company suffered loss in running the business, the hospital building along with various equipments and machineries was leased out to Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd., on a monthly lease of Rs. 3,00,000/-per month and the same was claimed as business income against which earlier business losses were set off.(ii) The Assessing Officer treated the income from lease of the hospital as 'income from other sources' and therefore disallowed setting off the earlier years business losses and assessed the lease income from the hospital as 'income from other sources'.(iii) Aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Officer, the appellant preferred appeal before the C.I.T. (Appeals...

A. Parveen Banu Vs. the Director, Directorate of Teacher Training Educ ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ49

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner belongs to Muslim Backward Community. She was forced to discontinue her B.Com Degree Course at Jamal Mohamed College, Tiruchirapalli, to join the Diploma in Teacher Education Course in Rajalakshmi Teacher Training Institute, Thandalam, Kancheepuram District, based on the proceedings of the Directorate of Teacher Training Education and Research Board, Chennai, dated 27.7.2007. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had completed her first year in the Diploma in Teacher Education Course and she had also completed her written examinations for the second year. However, she has to attend the oral examinations to complete the course during the academic year 2008-2009. While so, due to her unauthorised absence from the hostel, on 12.8.2008, she was issued a transfer certificate, based on the dire...