Chennai Court February 2017 Judgments
M/s. MRF Limited, Rep. by its Company Secretary Ravi Mannath Vs. P. An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
(Prayer: The suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Sections 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copy6right Act, 1957 for the following reliefs:- (a) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's Registered Trade Marks 'MRF' , 'MRF' Connected Letter Device' and/or the MRF Muscleman Device and/ or MRF Exclusive Dealer Board by using the said trademarks or any other mark, which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the above trademarks of the Plaintiff in connection with the defendant's business, and in particular tyre business, or in any other manner whatsoever; (b) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, their distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or a...
Tag this Judgment!N. Durga Bai and Others Vs. C.S. Pandari Bai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
(Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Order XXV Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules of Madras High Court, 1956, for the grant of Letters of Administration with the will dated 19.12.1983 annexed to the petitioners viz., the wife and sons/legatees under the will of the said deceased having effect limited to the State of Tamilnadu. As the Defendants have filed caveat, the Original Petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit No.22 of 2010 as per the order of this Court dated 18.02.2010 in O.P.No.160 of 2008.) 1. Original Petition No.160 of 2008 has been filed for the grant of Letters of Administration with the will dated 19.12.1983 annexed to the petitioners viz., the wife and sons/legatees under the will of the said deceased K.Neelakandan, having effect limited to the State of Tamilnadu. As the Defendants have filed caveat, the Original Petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit No.22 of 2010 as per th...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Sarkar and Another Vs. State: rep. By The Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
(Prayer:-Criminal Original filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.1901 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Redhills Police Station, Tiruvallur District.) Petition for bail. 2. Offence alleged under sections 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. in Cr.No.1901 of 2015. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners are in jail for a long period. They may be granted bail. 4. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) they have murdered a person. If they were given bail, they will escape. 5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the case records. 6. Prosecution version of the case is that the petitioners belongs to Tirupura State. They came to this State to eke out their livelihood. A-2 is the wife of the deceased. A-1 is paramour of A-2. A-1 and A-2 have illegal intimacy. Sexual jealousy is the motive for this crime. A-1 and A-2 have connived together and murdered the deceased. 7. In ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumaresan Vs. State Rep. By: The Inspector of Police, All Women Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
(Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for bail.) Petition for bail. 2. Offences alleged are under Section 376, 417 and 506(i) of IPC. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has been implicated in this case. Even on the allegations in the FIR, an offence under Section 376 IPC is not attracted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defacto complainant is a Post Graduate. She is 25 years old. She is two years older than the petitioner. Her only intention is that the petitioner should marry her. In order to marry him, she had preferred a false complaint. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that she is not an illiterate. She is highly educated. She knows the consequence of the alleged act viz., sexual intercourse. In such circumstances, an offence under Section 376 IPC is not attracted. 6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions: (1)Sekar vs. State b...
Tag this Judgment!Selvaraj Vs. J. Elumalai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 30.03.2011 made in A.S.No.63 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2010 made in O.S.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the third plaintiff against the Judgment and decree dated 30.03.2011 made in A.S.No.63 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2010 made in O.S.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law is formulated for consideration in this second appeal: ''Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs are based upon the perverse findings and conclusions and misdir...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Jewels Magnum represented by its Partner Vs. The Development Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2017
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent and quash the impugned order in No.B/127/2008/SEZ dated 20.04.2015 passed by the respondent.) 1. The petitioner calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the respondent, in and by which, the respondent imposed penalty of Rs.61.76 Crores under Section 11 (2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 on the petitioner for having violated the conditions of the Letter of Approval. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner firm is a partnership firm engaged in the business of import and export of gold jewellery and other precious stones since 2006. For the purpose of importing and exporting such gold jewellery, the petitioner firm has obtained a Letter of Approval (LoA) on 10.06.2008 issued by the Assistant Development Commissioner for manufacture of "gold bangles and pendan...
Tag this Judgment!Jakumar Christudoss and Others Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2017
(Prayer: Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.200 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner herein.) 1. This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.200 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai as against the petitioner herein. 2. It is averred in the petition that the second respondent lodged a complaint in the first respondent police and charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners joined together and created forged documents by amending the survey number from 5/3B-2D2 to 5/3B-2D3 so as to grab 13 cents land belonging to the defacto complainant. The first respondent has not conducted the investigation properly. He has not even noticed the death of the first accused even before lodging the complaint. Without analy...
Tag this Judgment!N. Savithri and Others Vs. Manonmani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2017
(Prayer: This appeal is filed Under Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2002 made in O.S.No.23 of 1999 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional District Court, Karaikal.) 1. The plaintiffs whose suit for declaration and recovery of possession was dismissed are the appellants. The 1st plaintiff Natesan, the husband of the 2nd plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 3 to 6 died pending suit and the plaintiffs 2 to 6 were recorded as his legal representative. 2. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties belonged to one Thirumenipillai and Govindasamy Pillai. In a partition that took place on 05.10.1926, the brothers were allotted 55 Kuzhies of land each. While Thirumenipillai had three sons namely, Natesan, Packirisamy and Ramaiyan, Govindasamy died issue less. The widow of Govindasamy namely, Govindammal @ Gangai Ammal settled an extent of 55 cents allotted to Govindasamy in the partition deed dated 05.10.1926, in favour of Natesan a...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajeswari and Others Vs. N. Rasayee and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2017
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011 made in A.S.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2010 made in O.S.No.987 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.12 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.987 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur, the plaintiffs have filed the above Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.987 of 2005 to declare the registered sale deed dated 03.01.1994 in respect of the suit property executed by the defendants 1 to 5 in favour of the sixth defendant is null and void and consequently, directing the sixth defendant to surrender the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs 3 to 6. 3. The br...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Educational Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee K. Balaram ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Feb-24-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the information Brochure, under Graduate admission 2015, The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University dated Nil issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same insofar as collecting first year fee as prescribed by Tamil Nadu Government from the candidates admitted during counselling under TNAU Quota (50 %) in Private affiliated colleges and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner form collecting the first year fee prescribed by Tamil Nadu Govt. from the candidates admitted during counselling under TNAU quota (50%).) 1. The petitioner Educational Trust is running a college, namely, College of Agricultural Technology at Theni, Theni District for offering B.Sc., (Agri) degree course. The present writ petition is filed challenging the Information Brochure, Under Graduate admission 2015, issued by the Tamil...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »