Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(61)ECC50
..... if the import policy prevailing at the time of import permitted them to import items falling under such category. this was also viewed in that light in the case of indo afghan chambers of commerce : 1986(10)ecc131 (supra).23. mr. habibullah badsha learned senior counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the decisions of the supreme court on the ground ..... reliance on a decision of the supreme court in the case of union of india v. godrej soaps pvt. ltd. : 1986ecr1(sc) and another decision of the supreme court in indo afghan chambers of commerce v. union of india : 1986(10)ecc131 and submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to import under the import policy, 1982-83 though the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999]97CompCas582(Mad); 1998(3)CTC589
ORDER1. All these eight appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi in two company petitions, namely, C.P.No. 45 of 1993 and C.P.No. 16 of 1994, dated 12.5.1998.2. C.M.A.Nos. 1071, 1207, 1208 and 1210 of 1998 are preferred against the order in C.P.No.16 of 1994, while C.M.A.Nos.1072, 1073, 1149 and 1209 are preferred against the order in C.P.No.45 of 1993. The main dispute relates to the affairs of M/s. Gordon Woodroffe & Company Limited (GWL), a sick company now before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) In C.M.A.No.1071 of 1998, M/s. Gordon Woodroffe & Company Limited, U.K. the petitioner in C.P.No.16 of 1994 is the appellant. In C.M.A.No.1207 of 1998, Kishore Rajaram Chhabria, Madan Dwarakdas Chhabria and Rajaram Dwarakdas Chhabria, the respondents 4 to 6 in C.P.No.16 of 1994 are the appellants. In C.M.A.No.1208 of 1998, Tracstar Investments (P) Ltd., the second respondent in C.P.No.16 of 1994 is the appellant....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2000Mad92
..... , fairly and openly, as they are bound by public accountability. placing reliance on the decision in mohinder singh gill v. chief election commissioner, reported in : [1978]2scr272 and commissioner of police v. gordhandas, reported in : [1952]1scr135 , contends that in the absence of reasons transparent on the notification the institute or c and ag are not entitled to supplement fresh reasons ..... find any force in the argument of mr. arvind p. datar, relying on the decisions in mohinder singh gill v. chief election commissioner reported in : [1978]2scr272 and commissioner of police v. gordhandas reported in : [1952]1scr135 , that the respondents are trying to supplement fresh reasons by filing counter to substantiate their action.37. the ratio laid down by the apex .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2000]111TAXMAN516(Mad)
..... transparently, fairly and openly, as they are bound by public accountability and placing reliance on the decisions in mohinder singh gill v. chief election commissioner : [1978]2scr272 and commissioner of police v. gordhandas : [1952]1scr135 , contends that in the absence of reasons transparent in the notification, the institute or c&ag; is not entitled to supplement fresh reasons by filing a ..... the respondents are trying to supplement fresh reasons by filing counter to substantiate their action.37. the ratio laid down by the apex court in dutta associates (p) ltd. v. indo merchants (p.) ltd. : (1997)1scc53 , that the decision make-in-process should be transparent, fair and open and that the authorities have public accountability to maintain the fairness in their .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2000]108TAXMAN341(Mad)
..... act transparently, fairly and openly, as they are bound by public accountability. placing reliance on the decisions in mohinder singh gill v. chief election commissioner : [1978]2scr272 and commissioner of police v. gordhandas bhanji : [1952]1scr135 , contends that in the absence of reasons transparent on the notification, the institute of c & ag are not entitled to supplement fresh reasons by filing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2003]116CompCas465(Mad); (2002)3MLJ83
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appeals are filed against the order of the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, sitting at Chennai dated 21.5.2000 made in C.P.Nos.68 and 69 of 1998. The respondents in C.P.No.69 of 1998 are the appellants in C.M.A. No.923 of 2000 and the respondents in C.P.No.68 of 1998 are the appellants in C.M.A.No.924 of 2000. The petitioner in C.P.No.69 of 1998 is the respondent in C.M.A.No.923 of 2000 and the petitioner in C.P.No.68 of 1998 is the respondent in C.M.A.No.924 of 2000.2. The appeals deal with two companies, viz., M/s.Micromeritics Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Microparticle Engineers Pvt. Ltd. As far as Microparticle Engineers Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, it was incorporated on 13.1.1992 under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The respondent in C.M.A.No.924 of 2000, by name, Senthamarai Munusamy along with S.Sounder, the second appellant and one Nalini Chandrasekar were holding shares in the said company and all of them were holdi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : LC2007(1)107
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The writ appeal, 2 writ petitions and 4 civil revision petitions arise out of a cobweb of litigation, in which, the word 'Maharaja' and his caricature are caught in a triangular contest. 2. The parties involved in this contest, carry on business in the sale of rice and grains, under the brand name 'MAHARAJA' with or without a caricature/device of a Maharaja. Since they are arrayed in different positions in the writ appeal, writ petitions and civil revision petitions, their description as petitioners or respondents would defy uniformity and would only create confusion. Therefore, they are referred to herein, as the 'Delhi Party', 'Tindivanam Party' and 'Kangayam Party', for the sake of convenience, since they have their head offices at Delhi, Tindivanam (Villupuram District, Tamilnadu) and Kangayam (Erode District, Tamilnadu) respectively. 3. Since the parties hereto have wielded against one another, almost all the weapons available under the Trade Marks Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007(3)ARBLR545(Madras)
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. This is an application taken out by the first defendant in the suit, under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to refer the parties to the present suit CS No. 924 of 2006, to arbitration, in accordance with the provisions contained in the joint venture agreement dated 06.12.1995.2. I have heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/first defendant, Mr. Y.P. Narula, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff and Mr. N. Ramakrishnan appearing for the second respondent/second defendant.3. The dispute between the parties, has arisen under the following circumstances:(a) The plaintiff, Enmas Engineering Private Limited, has an associate company by name Enmas Process Technology Limited (referred to in the abbreviated form as 'ETPL'), which is engaged in engineering, sales and distribution of recovery boilers and evaporators. The said company Enmas Process Technology Limited entered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)2MLJ348
..... person who has acquired such a right under the french law from the portals of the indian courts and from the remedy to which, under the civil procedure code and under the indo-anglian system of jurisprudence he would undoubtedly be entitled to. a holder of a mortgage, although it has been granted under the french law and procedure, is certainly entitled under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... more easily than the same can be resolved in the virtual world of internet. this is primarily because of the fact that the virtual world has no geographical limitations or borders, but the laws relating to protection of trademarks are normally country specific or region specific and confined to specific boundaries. the system of allocating rights in names, works reasonably well .....
Tag this Judgment!