Chennai Court September 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.
R. Saravanakumar and V.K. Sattanathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1088
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioners have come forward with these Writ Petitions praying for a direction to the respondents to fix their scale of pay on par with P.G. Teachers based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.2. According to the petitioners, Higher Secondary Education was introduced in the year 1978 and it consists of two categories namely General stream and Vocational stream. In the General stream, the Higher Secondary Education comprises of Maths Group, Science Group and Arts Group and the Vocational stream of education comprises of six areas viz. Commerce and Business, Engineering and Technology, Agriculture, Home Science, Health and Miscellaneous. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for General stream is a Post Graduate degree in the subject concerned and a Bachelor degree in Education (B.Ed.). The further case of the petitioners is that the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 1719 dated 14.9.1978, prescribing qualification for appointment of Voca...
Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Intellectual Property App ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad196
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. This writ petition raises a question as to whether the Registrar of Trade Marks can allow a notice of opposition to the registration of a trade mark to be given beyond the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 2. In other words, this writ petition raises the question as to whether the Registrar of Trade Marks can receive a notice of opposition to the registration of a trade mark given beyond the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 3. The short facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are hereunder: The petitioner and the respondent - 3 herein are both companies engaged in the manufacture and marketing of alcoholic beverages including Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). One of the brands under which the petitioner sells its alcoholic beverages being whisky is known as 'Officer's Choice'. The petitioner claims that the product under this brand name is in the market since 1988, but the petitioner bec...
M. Gurusamy and anr. Vs. Authorised Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Mad17
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioners are borrowers from the respondent. For recovery of money, the respondent took steps under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and issued possession notice as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act on 8-10-2007 to the petitioner. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings, they have to prefer appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore within 45 days. However they filed appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore after 49 days. Hence they filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.2. The Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal rejected the application on 10-12-2007 by observing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable in respect of 'Courts' only and not to the Tribunals. Hence, the said petition seeking for condonation of delay is rejected.3. Heard Mr. C. K. M. Appaji, learned Counsel appearing for the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›