Chennai Court June 2009 Judgments

Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. by Its Regional Manager (L an ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ181

P. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitions are directed against the award of the Insurance Ombudsman dated 30.8.2005, by which the claim of the second respondent in W.P. No. 46518 of 2006, who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 14536 of 2007 for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs under Anmol Jeevan Policy in respect of the death of her husband, late J. Chezian was partly allowed, awarding an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs in full and final settlement of the claim. While the Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed the former writ petition challenging the award, the claimant has filed the other writ petition against the denial of remaining sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. 2. The facts leading to the passing of award by the Tribunal are that the said J. Chezian had taken Anmol Jeevan Policy for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for a term of 20 years as per the proposal dated 21.12.2002, which was accepted on 28.1.2003 being the date of commencement of risk. The life assured died within one month i.e., on 21.2.2003 due to heart attack an...

Future Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Mr. S. EdwIn Rajamohan ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ71

ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. This application is filed seeking an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from passing off their services and business as and for the services and business of the applicant pending disposal of the suit. 2. The brief averment found in the application is as follows:The applicant Future Logistics Private Limited is involved in the Logistics Services including freight forwarding, consolidation, warehousing and customs clearance. The applicant had coined and adopted the trade name/service mark Future Logistics in the year 2004 in respect of Logistics Services. Future Logistics is significantly distinct and uniquely identified by the trade and public who associate the mark with the applicant's Logistics Services alone. The applicant has already filed an application seeking registration of the Trade Mark in Clause 39. Future Logistics has gained immense reputation and goodwill among various corporate houses and other commercial ent...

Nutrine Confectionery Co. Ltd. a Company Registered Under the Indian C ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1607

ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J. 1. Original Application No. 914 of 2008 is filed seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner passing off their goods as that of the applicants by using the offending trade mark 'Lacto'. 2. Original Application No. 915 of 2008 is filed seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner infringing the applicants trade mark 'Lacto'. 3. Application No. 1230 of 2009 is filed by the plaintiffs seeking to pass a decree in the suit as prayed for in prayers 'A' and 'B' contained in para 16 of the plaint. 4. The applicants would contend as follows:The applicant is a leading manufacturer of confectionary products. It a very reputed confectionary company involved in the said business since 1952. In the year 1958, the applicant conceived and adopted a distinctive trade mark 'Lacto Bon Bon' when they introduced a premium confectionary with condensed milk as one of the ingredients. The applicant is the f...

M. Palanisamy and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secreta ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1293

ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. Whether the amendment to the proviso to Section 19B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, brought in by the Tamil Nadu amendment Act 39 of 1999 can be applied retrospectively is the question which has arisen in these writ petitions for consideration.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners had purchased immovable properties, of which, some are situated in the State of Tamil Nadu and the rest in the State of Kerala, under common sale deeds and they were registered by the Sub Registrar concerned in the State of Kerala. Under Section 67 of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar concerned, after the registration is over, is required to forward a copy of the sale deed to the jurisdictional Sub Registrar in the State of Tamil Nadu. Section 19-B was introduced in the Stamp Act making such purchaser to pay differential stamp duty in respect of the properties situated in the State of Tamil Nadu covered in such common sale deeds. However, the proviso to Sub-section 4 of Sec...

Commissioner of Income Tax - Tds Vs. Icl Shipping Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]315ITR195(Mad)

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The revenue has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in ITA No. 2207/Mds/06, dated 15.12.2008.2. The question of law posed for consideration is as to whether the conclusion of the Tribunal in holding that the Indian shipping company need not deduct tax at source with respect to its crew for the days on which the ship was outside the territorial waters of India and the number of such days exceeds 182 in any particular year.3. We heard Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the relevant provisions viz., Sections 2(30), 2(42) and 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as taken note of the indisputable fact that the crews were on duty outside the territorial waters of India in the ship of a company of Indian origin for more than 182 days.4. On a reading of Sections 2(30), 2(42) and 6 together, for a person to claim the status of a 'non-resident' has only ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The appeal is dismissed for want of CoD clearance with liberty to the Revenue to apply for restoration as and when clearance is granted. CO is also dismissed....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Arun Plast

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The respondents herein are manufacturers of PP bags falling under CET Subheading 3923.90 of the First Schedule to the CETA85. During the course of manufacture of the above product, an intermediary product namely Lay Flat Tubings (LFT, for short) emerges. Until 1.6.1998, LFT was dutiable and the final product PP bags were exempted. The unit was enjoying the SSI exemption benefit on LFT manufactured and captively consumed by them in the manufacture of PP bags up to 1.6.98 and from that date onwards, there was exemption available to LFT while PP bags became dutiable as per Notification No. 5/98-CE dated. 2.6.98 as amended. The exemption was available on PP bags only up to an aggregate value of Rs. 85 lakhs. The assessees started availing of the exemption from 2.6.98 on PP bags. Scrutiny of documents and search of the residential premises of the respondents by the officers on 12.3.09 revealed that even after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 85 lakhs prescribed in the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Manjushree Plantations Ltd. ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram We have heard both sides on the appeals of the Revenue against a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that tea put up in container exceeding 20 kgs. per unit and bearing the brandname/mark of the company is not tea put up in unit container with brandname and hence is not liable to duty during the relevant period. 2. We find that the very same impugned order in respect of other tea factories was appealed against by the Revenue by filing Appeal Nos. E/187-195/2003 which was dismissed by Final Order No. 834-842/03 dated. 10.10.03. The Tribunal followed Order No. A-42/KOL/03 dated. 16.1.03 of the Eastern Zonal Bench of the Tribunal which, in turn, applied the ratio of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Courts judgment in Writ Petition No. 732/99 in the case of Dukenhengra Tea Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Union of India (High Courts order dated 5.9.2002). Following the ratio of the Tribunals Final Order No. 834-842/03 dated 10.10.03, we uphold the impugned ord...