Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-24-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR280(Madras); 2004(2)CTC334; (2004)2MLJ554
1. The above appeal is filed against the order dated 19.12.2000 in C.M.A.No.874 of 1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. We need not go into the merits of the case, in view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the above appeal.3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, second appeal is not maintainable, as barred under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. To appreciate the said condition, it is beneficial to extract Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which reads as follows:' Section 39: Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act and from none others to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order: An order- (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-15-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)CTC155; (2004)2MLJ639
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J,1. The appellant herein is the appellant in A.S.No. 342 of 1985 and respondent in A.S.588 of 1986 and defendant in the suit. The respondent herein is the respondent in A.S.No. 342 of 1985 and appellant in A.S.No. 588 of 1986 and the plaintiff in the suit.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff viz., Kovindasamy Naidu Hospital, which is administered by K. Govidasamy Naidu Medical Trust (hereinafter called as the Trust), which is a public Charitable Trust constituted under the deed of Trust dated 27.3.1974. The Trust was found to serve the public by providing medical relief to the general public, by establishing Hospital, Surgical Homes, Nursing Homes etc. The plaintiff comes within the scope of definition of Section 86(e) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter after called as the Act), by construing it as Charitable Hospital and hence eligible for exemption from payment of the property tax. However, the said benefit was not extended to it by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-18-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)CTC334
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The applicant/plaintiff has filed the suit (i) for a judgment and decree against the respondents/defendants for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the trade mark CHEFPRO and CHEFPRO PLUS, (ii) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright in the lay out, colour scheme, get up, design, artistic work, etc., of the CHEFPRO and CHEFPROPLUS series of mixer grinders and its accessories, (iii) for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, employees from in any manner passing off the defendant's goods as that of the plaintiff's by selling, advertising or offering to sell or using the plaintiffs Trade Marks or any mark or product which is identical with confusingly similar or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs Trade Marks and/or lay out, colour scheme, get up, design, artistic work, etc., of the products, and (iv) for permanent, injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-20-2004
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ425
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The Textile Commissioner in reference CER/(23) 90-CLB, passed an order dated 29.3.1990, that every mill which produces yarn should produce compulsorily hank yarn to the extent of 50% of the total production for sale in India during each half year. According to the said order, if there is any shortfall, it should be made good before the month succeeding the six months period and that failure to comply with the above order will result in penal action being taken. The said order was in force from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1995. The order further stipulated that out of 50% of the hank yarn not less than 80% of it shall be counts of 40s and below. Subsequently, the Textile Commissioner issued another notification dated 11.5.1990, according to which, the hank yarn production statement should be submitted for every quarter instead of half year period indicated originally. In this notification, in respect of the producer of yarn, who does not have the reeling capaci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-20-2004
Reported in : (2004)190CTR(Mad)517; [2004]268ITR436(Mad)
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The assessee on 3rd April, 1986 entered into an agreement to purchase an extent of 7394 sq.ft., in S.No.35/3 situate at Geddadahalli village, Bangalore, belonging to one Krishnamurthy, for a total consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid by him and it was further agreed that the balance of Rs.1,60,000/- would be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. Both parties reserved the right to specific performance of the agreement. Nearly four years thereafter, that was on 21.3.1990, again another agreement was entered into in the nature of deed of cancellation, in and by which the assessee agreed for termination of the earlier agreement and allowed the owner of the land to sell the said property to any person and at any price of his choice. As a consideration for this, the assessee was paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, apart from refunding the advance of Rs.40,000/- to the assessee.2. The assessee fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-20-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)CTC27
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 28.4.2004 made in O.A.No. 13/2004 and A.No. 1218 of 2004 in C.S.No. 5 of 2004; O.A.No. 14 of 2004 & A.No. 1076 of 2004 in C.S.No. 6 of 2004; O.A.No. 15 of 2004 and A.Nos. 841, 842 and 843 of 2004 in C.S.No. 7 of 2004; O.A.No. 16 of 2004 and A.Nos. 844, 845 and 846 of 2004 in C.S.No. 8 of 2004; and O.A. No. 17 of 2004 and A.Nos. 847, 848 & 849 of 2004 in C.S.No. 9 of 2004 filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs in the respective suits, wherein the learned single Judge made absolute the order of ex parte injunction dated 20.01.2004 made in O.A.Nos. 13 to 17 of 2004 in C.S.No. 5 to 9 of 2004 in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in each of the suits and dismissed the applications filed by the appellants/defendants to vacate the ex parte order of injunction dated 20.1.2004 in each of the suits.2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the above suits, viz., C.S.Nos. 5 to 9 of 2004 against the appellants here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-17-2004
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4284
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Great Poet Thiruvalluvar said in Thirukural:(Vernacular matter omitted)The meaning of this Kural is this:'It would be folly not to fear of what is to be feared.The truly wise will fear of what is to be feared.'We are reminded of this Kural while dealing with this suo motu contempt petition.2. Mr. Karuppan, former President of Madras High Court Advocates Association, who has put in more than 25 years of practice as an advocate, thinking that he is involving in heroic and courageous acts, has challenged the majesty of law, thereby landing himself in the trouble of facing the contempt proceedings before the Full Bench of this Court.3. This has got a chequered history which is as follows :'(a) Karuppan, an Advocate of this Court, as a party in-person, claiming himself as a best Rifle shooter, filed various writ petitions and the contempt petition against the Chennai Rifle Club and its office bearers as well as the Government seeking for the direction to the Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-16-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)CTC85; [2005]139STC233(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition in W.P.No. 38111 of 2003 is filed for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in No. Rc. 1850/2003/A1 dated 9.12.2003 relating to assessment year 1994-95 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner and examining the documents.2. The writ petition in W.P.No. 38112 of 2003 is filed for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in No. Rc.1850/2003/A1 dated 9.12.2003 relating to assessment year 1995-96 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner and examining the documents.3. The writ petition in W.P.No. 38113 of 2003 is filed for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in No. Rc.1850/2003/Al dated 9.12.2003 relating to assessment year 1996-97 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to pass an appropriate order after h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-23-2004
Reported in : (2005)1MLJ378
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The issue involved in the above batch of writ appeals is as to the validity of Clause 23 of the Prospectus issued by the State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein in respect of admission of service candidates to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Medicine Course for the Academic year 2004-2005.2. These writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 2151 of 2004 etc. dated 27.4.2004.3. All the writ appellants are Doctors, who have passed M.B.B.S. Examination and who are in-service candidates, who have been appointed in various Primary Health Centres in 2001. The relevant rule prevailing at the time of their appointment was that they can seek admission to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Medicine Course only after completion of their two years service in Government Primary Health Centres.4. The State Government earmarked 50% of seats in admission for servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-18-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR284(Madras); IV(2004)BC101; [2005]123CompCas533(Mad); 2004(3)CTC754; [2004]54SCL100(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge, Salem dated 22-10-2003, made in Arbitration O.P.No. 46 of 2003, Techmo Car SPA, Italy has filed the above appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. The respondent herein, The Madras Aluminium Company Limited, Mettur Dam filed the above Arbitration O.P., (O.P.No.46/2003) on 12-3-2003 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for an order directing the Techmo Car to furnish security by depositing into Court to the credit of the said petition, a sum namely US $.5,757,565 equivalent to Rs.27,40,60,111 or in the alternative to furnish security to the said value in the form acceptable to the petitioner which could be enforced for recovering the aforesaid amount pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings and also an order of interim injunction restraining the said company from removing any records, papers and documents...
Tag this Judgment!