Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

K. Sarangapani Vs. K. Thangavel

Court: Chennai

(Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.109 of 2006 on 28.01.2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge at Ranipet, Vellore District confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.371 of 1995 dated 29.07.2003 passed by the learned District Munsif Court at Sholinghur, Vellore District.) The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. He had filed the suit against the respondent for the relief of specific performance based on an agreement dated 13.08.1986 alleged to have been executed by the respondent herein/defendant in favour of the appellant herein/plaintiff agreeing to convey the suit properties for a sum of Rs.16,500/- within 7 years from the date of agreement. It was the further contention of the appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court that out of the three items of suit properties, the first item belonged to one K.K.Subramania Mudaliar of Melapulam village and that he agreed to sell the same to the appellant ...

Thiruvannamalai Mannbody Lorry Urimaiyalargal Nalasangam Regd., Rep. b ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 8.9.2012, 8.10.2012 and 25.10.2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 24.09.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 24.09.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the autho...

Aqua Pump Industries Rep by Its Managing Partner Ramaswamy and Another ...

Court: Chennai

This application is filed by the applicants / plaintiffs seeking for stay of all further proceedings in the suit in C.S.No.231 of 1999 pending disposal of rectification applications filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (for short IPAB), invoking the power under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. 2. The applicants / plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of the registered trade mark and for passing off. Pending suit, the applicants have obtained an interim injunction against the defendant from using the trade mark TEXMO with respect to Schedule 3 goods as contained in the agreement between the parties dated 24.05.1990. Pending the suit, the IPAB had upheld the split of the Trade mark Nos.315049 and 315050 among the plaintiffs and the defendant in terms of the agreement dated 24.05.1990 on 25.10.2004. The IPAB had directed the applicants / plaintiffs to use the prefix AQUA and the defendant to use any other prefix or suffix to distinguish their products. By virtue of...

K. Vasudeva Rao and Others Vs. K. Lakshminarayana Rao and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ435

O.A.Nos.143 and 144 of 2011 were filed by the applicants / plaintiffs seeking for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from preventing the participation of the first applicant in the business and affairs of the 12th respondent company and also for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 11 from in any manner dealing with the shares, properties of the 12th respondent more fully set out in the schedule to the petition, including but not limited to sale, transfer, merger, de-merger, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering of the said shares / properties. 2. The applicants are the plaintiffs in the main suit. The suit is for the grant of various reliefs including declaration that the transfer of 12000 shares of the first applicant in the 12th defendant company, the details of which were mentioned in Schedule 'E', to the defendants 1 and 5 as null and void and for a direction to 1st and 5th defendants jointly and several...

K. Raja Vs. the Registrar of Co-op Societies and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd and 4th respondent in relation to the proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.5663/2004/Nee.Vaa dated 06.07.2004 and the consequential proceedings issued in No.Nil; dated 14.07.2004 respectively and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Assistant in the 4th respondent Bank with service and monetary benefits.) ORDER 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being a B.Com Graduate and a Diploma Holder on Co-operation, was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the 4th respondent from 16.04.1998, in pursuant to the resolution passed by the 4th respondent dated 24.03.1998. After his appointment, by taking note of his sincerity and hard work he was put on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,500/- per month. Subsequently, by passing another resolution by the Board on ...

Vodafone India Limited Vs. M/S. R.K. Productions Pvt. Ltd and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(5)LW626

1. C.S.No.208 of 2012 was filed by M/s.R.K. Productions Private Limited. C.S.No.294 of 2012 was filed by Creative Commercials Media and Entertainment Ltd. Both suits were filed as John Doe suits. But the label "John Doe" was replaced by Ashok Kumar, an unknown person of India. 2. The first suit relates to a Tamil Film named as "3". It is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and other unknown persons infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the cinematograph film "3" by copying, recording, reproducing or allowing, camcording or communicating or allowing others to communicate or making available or distributing or duplicating or displaying or releasing or showing or uploading or downloading or exhibiting or playing and in any manner communicating the plaintiff's movie "3" without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate or infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "3" through different mediums inclu...

M/S. Bangalore Surgicals Represented by Its Partner, Bangalore Vs. the ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to return the Bank Guarantee bearing No.0686109BG0004406 dated 11.08.2012 for Rs.15,50,000/- pertaining to the Bill of Entry No.285509 dated 13.08.2009.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, an order of this Court, dated 01.10.2012, made in W.P.No.21897 of 2012, passed in similar circumstances. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner would keep the Bank Guarantee, already furnished by the petitioner in favour of the first respondent, valid, until final assessment orders are passed, in respect of the B.E.No. 285509, dated 13.08.2009. 4. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to issue an appropriate noti...

Anisha Bhandary and Others Vs. Gyan Developers and Builders Ltd, Chenn ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 30.11.2011 in I.A.No.182 of 2010 in O.S.No.747 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Alandur.) 1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the revision petitioners. They filed an application to reject the plaint and that application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that a reading of the plaint makes it clear that no cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file a suit and even according to the allegations made in the plaint, the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession of the property and they were not put in possession of the property by the lawful owners and no document was filed to prove that the owners viz., the revision petitioners agreed to develop their land by the plaintiffs and entrusted the property with the plaintiffs and even according to the plaint allegations, the fourth defendant, acting as agent of the defendants viz., the revision petiti...

K. Ramanlal Vs. Union of India Represented by Its Revenue Secretary De ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders under Section 47 of The Customs Act, 1962 on the Bill of Entry No.8240214 dated 17th October, 2012 for the import of unbranded gold jewellery weighing 13566.240 Gms. Covered under Invoice No.09/03 dated 13th October, 2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 21.10.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 2...

R. Yoganathan Vs. R. Karuppusamy and Others

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER : Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Court), Erode.) The injured in a road accident, disputes the decision on the question of negligence and the quantum of compensation. 2. On 04.07.2005, the appellant sustained injury in a road accident. The Tribunal mulcted him with 10% of negligence. Accordingly, deducted 10% from the total compensation amount of Rs.2,20,502/- on the ground of contributory negligence and granted him Rs.1,98,154/-. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, fastening of 10% negligence on the appellant is not in accordance with law. Further, the appellant was hospitalised for a considerable period, but no Attendant charges has been granted. Medical bills for Rs.40,000/- has been rejected without proper reason. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that cogent and acceptable reason has been given by the T...