Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 18 days in filing this Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010 in O.S.No.150 of 2005 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner/Defendant/Appellant has projected the present Miscellaneous Petition under Or.41 R.3A of the Civil Procedure Code , praying for passing of an order by this Court to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the Appeal in A.S.SR.No.20590 of 2014 as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2010 in O.S.No.150 of 2005 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore. 2. The Averments in Miscellaneous Petition (Filed by the Petitioner/Defendant/Appellant): a) The entire suit was misconceived, devoid of merits and hinged upon two documents which were forged and fabricated by the Respondents/Plaintiffs to support their case. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: This Revision is filed under Section 379 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order, dated 18th May 2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.524 of 2014 in E.O.C.C.No.84 of 2001 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences Court No.II), Egmore, Chennai 600 008.) 1. This petition is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.524 of 2014 in E.O.C.C.No.84 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences Court No.II), Egmore, Chennai, dated 18.05.2015 discharging the respondent from the case. 2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:- The petitioner/complainant preferred a complaint under Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973, punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of the said Act r/w Sub Section 3(3) and (4) of Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Madras-8 stating that the accused had acquired forei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1992)2MLJ252
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiffs, who succeeded in the trial court but failed in the appellate Court, have preferred this second appeal. The suit relates to three items of properties. The first two items arc agricultural lands and the third item is a house.2. The relationship of the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiffs are the sons of Abdul Kuthoose Rowther, son of Kader Moideen Rowther. The third defendant is the sister of Abdul Kuthoose Rowther and the daughter of Kader Moideen Rowther. The first defendant is the daughter of the third defendant. The second defendant is a stranger. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their rank in the suit, as plaintiffs and defendants.3. The case set out in the plaint is as follows: Kader Moideen Rowther died more than fifty years prior to suit and Abdul Kuthoose Rowther died about twenty years prior to suit. The latter was entitled to the suit properties and he was in long, continuous and open possession and enjoyment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :18. 08.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P.(MD) No.244 of 2014 Mariappan S/o.Kadarkaraiyan Paraiyadi Street, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District. .. Petitioner versus 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The State rep by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Station, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to call for the records in M.H.S.Confdl.No.01/2014 dated 02.01.2014 and issue a writ directing the respondents to produce the detenu Venkatesh @ Maangai S/o.Mariappan, aged 24 years, herein who has been termed as ".Goonda". and now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Writ Petition filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Second respondent in sanction order dated 19.03.2005 and to quash the decision taken thereon sanctioning prosecution under Section 19(1)(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner.COMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P.JYOTHIMANI ,J.,)1. The appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.01.2010 made in W.P.No.22472 of 2009 filed by the appellant herein, in and by which the learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has held that the order of sanction to prosecute the appellant has been made with independent application of mind supported by reasons and charge sheet has already been filed.2.The appellant has served the respondent/Bank for a period of 33 years under various positions. While he was working as Chief Manager of Indira Nagar Branch, Chennai, in the year 2005, an explanation was called for in respect of some of the commissions and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 979 of 2007 is the defendant in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007.2. C.S. No. 1111 of 2007 is a suit filed under Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaintiff's patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said patent and/or manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale or exporting 2/3 wheelers, including the proposed 125-CC FLAME motorcycle containing an internal combustion engine or any internal combustion engine or product which infringes the plaintiff's patent No. 195904, claiming of damages for infringement of patent to the extent of Rs. 10,50,000/- etc.Pending the said suit, the plaintiff therein, namely Bajaj Auto Limited has filed O.A. 1357 of 2007 praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner infringing the applicant's patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/ invention described in the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1959Mad158; [1958]33ITR567(Mad); (1959)2MLJ196
1. Certain facts and circumstances are common to all these cases and we shall set them out first.2. Between February 1942 and September 1945 Malava was under the occupation of the Japanese. During this period the Occupying Power issued its own currency in dollars and this currency circulated side by side with the previous Malayan currency which was also in dollars. In 1948 the Malayan Legislature enacted an Ordinance to which let'erence will be made presently.The schedule to that Ordinance shows that up-to the end of December, 1942, the new Japanese currency and the old Malayan currency circulated at par. In January 1943, the Japanese currency began to depreciate and in December 1943, one hundred old Malayan dollars were equivalent to 385 new Japanese dollars. In 1944, the depreciation became more rapid with the result that in December 1944, one hundred old Malayan, dollars, were equal to 1850 new Japanese dollars.From January 1945, the rate of depreciation be-came almost a landslide. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Dagger Die Cutting was started in the year 1993. It is engaged in manufacturing and selling of Leather Die Cutting Knives. The petitioner is registered as a small scale industry. It enjoys exemption in payment of excise duty. Excise duty payable on the total value of clearance was exempted to an extent of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the period 1995-2000 and to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000/- from 2000 onwards. The petitioner is also entitled to duty credit via modvat and cum-duty benefits. Her husband Mr. Nilanjan Deshpande has started Dagger International a Concern involved in retailing the Die Cutting Knives. The first respondent Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate issued show cause notice dated 19.5.2000 claiming duty for the period from 1995-96 to 2000-2001. The duty has been claimed for the transactions that took place during the years 1995-96. The petitioner countered the claim of excise duty in the show cause notice issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad410; (1960)IIMLJ401
(1) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the Court below representing the entire body of shareholders of a private limited company, the O. V. Estates Ltd. (16th defendant) which was liquidated, for possession, vesting or reconveyance of the suit properties (Schedules A to D) alleged to have been transferred through the exercise of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence on the part of defendant 1 (Messrs. Pierce Leslie & Co. Ltd.), and defendants 2 to 14 through the 1st defendant, who stood to the plaintiffs in a fiduciary relationship of trust and confidence, in favour of the O. V. Estates (1939) Ltd., the 15th defendant (new company). The learned Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris dismissed this suit upon findings adverse to the plaintiffs upon all the main issues, including limitation.(2) In the presentation of this appeal before us learned counsel for the appellants has attempted to base their case upon certain principles of equity jurisprudence, which have received both statuto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1990]67CompCas306(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment of Ramaprasada Rao J., as he then was, rendered in company petitions Nos. 27 to 31 of 1976. A common question arose in all those petitions. The nature of relief was for rectifying the register of members of five incorporated companies, namely, Shardlow India Ltd., India Pistons Ltd., Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., Bimetal Bearings Ltd. and Reichhold Chemicals India Ltd. 2. The rectification sought for was for the removal of the name of Associated Printers (Madras) Ltd. from the share register of each of the above companies. A further relief was prayed for to effect that the petitioner before the learned single judge, the appellant before sub, should be substituted as the holder of such shares in the place of the said Associated Printers (Madras) Ltd. 3. The third respondent in the appeals was the third respondent before the learned judge in all a the company petitioners. He is none other than the brother of the petitioner be...
Tag this Judgment!