Chennai Court September 2009 Judgments

Vittal Mallya Scientific Research Foundation Represented by Its Chief ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: LC2010(1)3

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. These three applications were filed by the applicant/plaintiff.2. The applicant has filed a suit in C.S. No. 651 of 2005 for various reliefs including permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the soluble double metal salt of HCA in violation of the plaintiff's process Patent Nos. 182487, the anti obesity beverages in market in violation of the plaintiff's process patent No. 182488, the soluble double metal salt of HCA in market in violation of the plaintiff's process patent Nos. 182489, 182490, 182810 and 183849 and the US product patent Nos. 6160172 and 6395296 B1 and for further reliefs of delivery to the plaintiff for destruction all offending materials, stocks, booklets and other materials including raw material, inputs, work in progress finished goods manufactured by the defendants in violation of plaintiff's process patents for double metal salt of HCA and also for a direction to defendant to render true account of profits ...

M/S. K.B.R. Wires and Bearings Rep. by Its Proprietor Thathiah, Usilam ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The opposite party before the lower forum, who suffered an award at the instance of the deceased complainant is the appellant. 2. The deceased complainant by name N. Nalllaperumal had purchased a submersible motor manufactured Texmo Company for irrigating his fields as per bill dt.17.9.200. The appellant, after the payment of a sum of Rs.50000/- or so supplied a motor and installed the same also collecting a charge of Rs.3000/-. As reported in the complaint, the motor supplied and installed has not functioned effectively serving its purpose of pumping water, resulting a complaint to the appellant/supplier. The appellant after inspecting or otherwise satisfied that the original motor supplied by them was defective, substituted another motor as if it is a brand new one. Believing the words of the appellant, the complainant also installed the same, but it proved worthless since the said motor also not functioned well as expected. Thereafter, the complainant approa...

State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Manager, Chennai Vs. K.B.P. Shankar

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The Appellant failed to oppose the claim made by the complainant for the compensation of Rs.50,000/- in C.C.19 of 2007 despite the fact time has been given as recorded by the lower Forum. In view of the fact that the Appellant failed to appear before the lower Forum in time and filed version, setting them exparte, an order was passed on merit directing the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing monetary loss and mental agony which is under challenge in this Appeal. 2. Here also while preferring the Appeal there was delay which was condoned, taking lenient to view as per the order in CMP. No.1325/2008 though there was a delay of 155 days. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since lower Forum has passed an exparte order though it is labeled an order passed on merit, it is not so, because of the fact that no sufficient opportunities were given to the Bank, to file version as well as to file documents if any which is ...

C. Natarajan Vs. State by Inspector of Police District Crime Branch (D ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4797

ORDERP.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR registered in Crime No. 3/2009 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC based on the complaint of the second respondent herein dated 03.03.2009.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition can be summarised in brief as follows:Claiming to be the owner of a property comprised in Survey No. 191/3 having an extent of six cents, the petitioner herein sold the said land along with the adjacent lands comprised in Survey No. 191/1 to three persons viz. 1) Babu s/o Masilamani, 2) Saravanan s/o Annamalai and 3) Balaji s/o Dakshinamoorthy under three sale deeds bearing document Nos. 911/2008, 988/2008 and 3298/2008 respectively registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Polur. The second respondent, namely the de-facto complainant preferred a complaint on the file of District Crime Branch, Thir...

N. Meenakshi Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Mad)625

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the assessment order of the respondent dated 31.12.2008 by which the respondent, having referred the matter to the Valuation Cell on 17.12.2008 as per Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'), completed the assessment by invoking Section 50C of the Act by taking the value of land as determined for stamp duty purpose as the sale value, as no valuation report was received from the Valuation Cell till the said date.2.1. The petitioner was the owner of a plot of land comprised in R.S. No. 3123/2, Block No. 51, Old No. 258 (New No. 849), Poonamallee High Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai. She leased out the said portion of land to the Indian Oil Corporation for more than 40 years in which the Corporation was operating a petrol bunk. The petitioner, having decided to sell the property to the Indian Oil Corporation, after negotiation, fixed the sale consideration at Rs. 99 Lakhs. Pursuant to the agreement, a s...

G.G. Kannan Vs. Saleem

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1698

ORDERAruna Jagadeesan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 18.08.2009 passed in unnumbered E.A. of 2009 in E.P. No. 249 of 2002 in R.C.O.P. No. 73 of 1985 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.2. An ex-parte order of eviction has been passed against one Theskhnamoorthy, who is said to have let out the property to the petitioner executing a rent deed in his favour by getting a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as consideration on 18.08.1998. According to the petitioner, he was paying the rent of Rs. 750/- (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) per month to the said Theskhnamoorthy till January 2008. Thereafter, it is alleged that Theskhnamoorthy colluded with the decree holder and refused to receive the rent. Subsequently an exparte eviction had come to have been passed.3. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 73/85. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is running a hotel ...

Visvas Promoters P. Ltd. a Private Limited Company Represented by Its ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]185TAXMAN145(Mad)

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 30.1.2009 passed in M.P. No. 379/mds/2008, rejecting the said petition filed by the assessee for cancellation of earlier order of the Tribunal dated 13.10.2008 in respect of assessment year 2004-05 by which the appeal filed by the Department was allowed and for restoration of the appeal and to pass further orders.2. The petitioner is carrying on the business of real estate and during the assessment year 2004-05 the petitioner is said to have put up construction of four housing projects in Madurai city, viz. Agrini, Vajra, Porkudam Phase I and Phase II. In respect of two projects, viz., Agrini and Vajra, the construction of flats has been done and the size of the flats was more than 1500 sq. ft. and in respect of some of the flats, the size was less than 1500 sq. ft. area. In respect of flats which are measuring less than 1500 sq. ft., the petitione...

A. Kaliyamoorthy Vs. the District Collector/inspector of Panchayats an ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ588

ORDERM.M. Sundresh, J.1. The petitioner herein was appointed on 01.11.1996 as a Panchayat Assistant. While he was working as a Panchayat Assistant at Thondamandurai Panchayat situated in Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District an order of transfer was passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.491/09/A3 in the month of May 2009 transferring the petitioner from Thondamandurai Panchayat to Kariyanur Panchayat. The said order of transfer has been made based upon the letter of the second respondent dated 15.04.2009. Challenging the said order on the ground that there was no enquiry that it is punitive in nature and on non application of mind, the present writ petition has been filed.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a Panchayat Assistant on a consolidated pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is very difficult to work in some other Panchayat which is about 35metres away from his residence. The order of transfer has been passed on extraneous conside...

S. Balasubramaniam and Mrs. Lalitha Balasubramaniam Vs. the Special Co ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ529

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. In the writ petition, the learned single Judge observed that the facts revealed that even prior to the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 ('Repeal Act' in short) with effect from 16.6.1999, possession had been taken by the Government on 21.2.1997 and therefore, the case of the writ petitioners that that they were still in possession cannot be taken as a legal possession and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Against that, this appeal has been filed.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had bona fide purchased the property in Plot Nos. 19 and 20, subject matter of the writ petition, on 17.4.1989 and on 22.3.1993. There is a small scale industry in the said land and the appellants are in possession of the land; by the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 ('Act' in short), 350 sq. mts. had been declared as excess; the order under Section 9(5) had been passe...

Mrf United Workers Union Rep. by Its General Secretary Vs. Government ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ685Mad

H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. This writ petition raises an important question with respect to the procedure for recognition of a trade union as the representative body of workmen in an industry in the absence of a specific statutory provision of law.2. MRF Limited (Madras Rubber Factory) is a leading Tyre manufacturing company situated in Ichiputhur Village of Arakonam Taluk in Vellore District of Tamil Nadu. It is having its Corporate Office in Chennai. It employs around 1500 workmen in different capacities, and it is one of the major industrial units situated in the vicinity of Chennai.3. The appellant/petitioner is a Registered Trade Union, which claims to represent majority of the workmen functioning in this industry. Respondent No. 6 is another Trade Union, which also claims to have majority membership. Respondent No. 4 is the Management of MRF Limited and Respondent No. 5 is its Plant Manager. Respondents 4 and 5 are stated to be entertaining Respondent No. 6 and not the petitioner for th...