Chennai Court August 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramesh Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ203
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. The sole accused, who was convicted for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also convicted for the charge under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, moves the present criminal appeal.2. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 30 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. There is neither oral nor documentary evidence on the side of the accused.3. The brief summary of the case of the prosecution as spoken to by the witnesses reads as follows:i) The deceased Alamelu is the wife of PW1 Selvaraj. PW2 Chandrasekaran and PW3 Rajendran are the brothers of PW1 Selvaraj. PW10 Vemban is the son of PW1. PW14 Suresh is the son of the other brother of PW1.ii) PW1 Selvaraj had been to foreign country for about ten long years to eke out his livelihood. Just about eight months prior to the occurrence, he came down to his village Eram...
G.M. Pens International Limited Vs. Ramesh Kumar JaIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC591(Mad)
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. These two civil revision petitions are at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry and the challenge is to the order passed by the learned trial Judge allowing the applications filed by respondents 1 to 4 invoking Order 11 Rules 1 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit in O.S. No. 3 of 2002 was filed by the revision petitioner before the District Judge, Puducherry praying for a judgment and decree to restrain the respondents, their agents, and men from committing piracy of their registered design bearing No. 186574 in respect of the shape and configuration of the pens by manufacturing, selling, distributing BITCO FINGER pens which is an imitation of the get up and trade dress of plaintiff's 045 SMARTGRIP pens in any manner whatsoever and for other consequential reliefs.3. In the plaint in O.S. No. 3 of 2002, the revision petitioner as plaintiff contended thus:(a) The plaintiff has a...
M.S. Mansoor Deen and ors. Vs. Mrs. Fathimuthu Beevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ293
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The civil revision petitioners have filed the present three civil revision petitions as against the order dated 21.04.2008 in E.A. No. 766 of 2000 in E.P. No. 156 of 1996 in O.S. No. 25 of 1958 passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Mathuranthakam in allowing the execution application in E.A. No. 766 of 2000 filed by the decree holder/plaintiff without costs.2. The Executing Court, while passing orders in E.A. No. 766 of 2000 dated 21.04.2008, has come to the conclusion that 'at a time when the suit is pending the respondents have purchased the property and later has constructed buildings and as such there has been no occasion to file an application to demolish the buildings at the initial stage and as per decree the buildings constructed in the petition properties are ordered to be demolished and since the sale obtained by the respondents are invalid the patta, house tax receipt, electricity receipt are not maintainable and resultantly the buildings are o...
The Revenue Divisional Officer and the Commissioner and Secretary, Edu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ33
1. In pursuance of a Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 approved in G.O.Ms. No. 445, Education, dated 15.4.1991, the lands of a total extent of 1.87.0 Hectares in Survey Nos. 450/1A, 453/1A, 453/3E, 454/4, 455/3A2 and 456/2A1 in Keezha-veeraraghavapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District was acquired for the purpose of establishing a Government College of Engineering at Tirunelveli.2. As a matter of fact, proceedings for acquisition were first initiated in the year 1983 and possession of lands were also taken, but due to various reasons, the Notification lapsed. Therefore, the Government was compelled to issue a fresh Notification in the year 1991, which it did under G.O.Ms. No. 445 dated 15.4.1991. The notification was published in the Gazette on 26.6.1991 and the substance of the same was published in the locality on 25.10.1991.3. After completion of other formalities, an award was passed in Award No. 2/94 dated 20.10.1994 fixing ...
A. Subramani Vs. S. Gnanasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ560
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The following are the allegations in brief contained in the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord (respondent herein) before the Rent Controller under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960:1.(a) The petitioner is landlord and the respondent is tenant under the petitioner in respect of the schedule mentioned non-residential premises. The monthly rent for the premises is Rs. 1,750/-. Rs. 1,00,000/- was received as advance by the petitioner. The respondent has wilfully, wantonly failed and neglected to pay the rents from the month of January 2002 at the rate of Rs. 1,750/- per month. Hence he is a wilful defaulter.1.(b) The petitioner is doing xerox business in a portion of the ground floor of the schedule mentioned property under the stair case. He is having xerox machine, fax machine and STD and local telephone booth. He is also having his franchise office of First Flight Courier Service and running...
The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chandr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1632
A. Selvam, J.1. Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the award dated 26.10.2004 passed in MCOP. No. 354 of 1997 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court) Dindigul.2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed MCOP. No. 354 of 1997 under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of 1961 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs. 1,00,000/-, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent.3. It is stated in the petition that on 08.09.1996 at about 11.45 am, the petitioner has travelled on a motor cycle as a pillion rider on Nilakottai - Anaipatti road from North to South. At that time the driver of the first respondent has driven the van bearing Registration No. TN-57-6636 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle on which the petitioner has travelled and due to accident, the petitioner has sustained multiple injuries incl...
Lakshmi Gold Khazaanaa Rep. by Its Proprietor Nanjundi Vs. B. Kishore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1068; 2009(41)PTC443(Mad)
R. Subbiah, J.1. All the Appeals are preferred, challenging the legality of a common order dated 30.06.2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Original Application Nos. 447 to 449 of 2008 respectively in C.S. No. 417 of 2008, whereby the applications filed by the plaintiff were allowed.2. The plaintiff filed the said suit for permanent injunction, damages and also for a preliminary decree. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed O.A. Nos. 447 to 449 of 2008 for interim injunction, restraining the defendant and his men from in any manner infringing their registered trade mark KHAZANA under No. 544884 in Class 14 by use of Lakshmi Gold KHAZAANAA as a trade mark and/or as part of trade name/trading style or by use of any other trade mark/trade name containing the word KHAZANA or any word similar thereto or in any other manner whatsoever; for interim injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any manner infringing their domain name www.khazanajewellery.com by use of ...
V.K. Palanivelu Vs. the Deputy Director, Anti Corruption Wing, Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Su. Srinivasan, learned Counsel in support of this writ petition. Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Cases appears for the first respondent and Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel appears along with Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy for the second respondent.2. The petitioner is an advocate practising at Salem. He claims to be a member of the Indian National Congress, a political party and also claims to be the former General Secretary of the party in Salem District. 3. The second respondent to the writ petition is the President of the Tamil Nadu Unit of the Indian National Congress. He was a Member of the Rajya Sabha from 1984-1990 and then of the Lok Sabha from 1991-1996. During 1993-1996, he was a Minister of State in the Central Government for the Ministry of Social Welfare. He was subsequently elected to the Parliament during the term 2004-2009. In 2009, he contested the election, wherein he was defeated.4. The first respon...
The Management of Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ145Mad
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the award made in I.D. No. 431 of 1994 dated 4.1.2001 on the file of the Labour Court, Vellore.2. The case of the petitioner-management as could be seen from the affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The second respondent was employed as Supervisor in the petitioner Soap Factory at Ranipet. During April, 1999, the management placed orders with the manufacturers at Mumbai for supply of certain machineries in connection with the expansion of the manufacturing activities at Ranipet. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was involved in various manufacturing activities in the factory and in order to ensure proper execution of the work order given to the manufacturer at Mumbai, and also to survey and inspect the machineries, the management decided to send competent technicians to Mumbai for certain period.(b) The second respondent and two others were found fit for the above job ...
idbi Bank Limited Vs. the Administrator Kothari Orient Finance Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2009
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas282(Mad); (2009)8MLJ209
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in Company Application No. 1208 of 2002 an application seeking a direction to the respondents to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the petition mentioned property pending the winding up proceedings in C.P. No. 179 of 2001 in respect of Kothari Orient Finance Limited.2. The appellant/petitioner bank made an application under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act seeking the said direction with the averments that Kothari Orient Finance Limited was a constituent of the petitioner, which was provided with certain facilities during the year 1992; that the liability became irregular; that the company owed to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 60,55,055/- as on 31.3.1999; that the company approached the petitioner for one time settlement and offered the property in question in respect of which execution of sale deed is sought for at the market value; that the petitioner was constrained ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »