Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-25-2005
Reported in : (2006)1MLJ542; 2006(32)PTC65(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Wockhardt Limited, a pharmaceutical company, appellant herein, is the holder of Process Patent, EMR and Drug Licence for the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparation, namely, Nadifloxacin 1% Cream.2. Hetero Drugs Limited, first respondent herein, infringing the Patent and EMR granted to the appellant, started manufacturing the same product and selling in the market. On coming to know of the same, appellant filed a suit in C.S. No. 456 of 2005 for permanent injunction, restraining Hetero Drugs Limited, Nicholas Piramal (India) Limited and Adyar Drug House, respondents 1 to 3, from infringing the (i) Patent No. 188847; (ii) EMR granted to it and (iii) restraining the respondents from manufacturing or in any way using the composition, which the appellant invented, for manufacture of Nadifloxacin 1% Cream.3. Pending the suit, similar orders of ad-interim injunction were sought for in O.A. Nos. 544 to 546 of 2005 and, by an order dated 31.05.2005, interim injuncti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-29-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)CTC790
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu who has been detained as per the detention order dated 13.12.2004, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City. The said order of preventive detention has been passed under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' read with orders issued by the Government in G.O. (D) Ho.258, Prohibition end Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18th October 2004.2. The grounds of detention disclose that the detenu Jaheer Hussain and his associates were engaged in illegal activities of copying and selling of new cinema films and obscene films without copyright and a case had been, registered under Section 292-A, I.P.C. read with 51-B read with 63B and 52A read with 68A of the Copyright...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-2005
Reported in : 2005(185)ELT114(Mad); (2005)2MLJ158
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This is a reference application on behalf of the revenue under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by which the following questions have been sought to be referred to us for our opinion.'1. Is the Hon'ble Tribunal right in holding that the payment of duty vide PLA No. 580 dated 27.10.92 has not been paid voluntarily?2. Can the letter OC. No. 1124/97 dated 02.09.92 of the Superintendent of Central Excise asking the assesses to reverse an amount of Rs.5,98,000/- being irregular Modvat credit availed, and other correspondences in continuation, be considered to have raised a dispute since it is not a SCN issued under Section 11A? Can the Action of the assessee debiting the said amount vide PLA No. 580 dated 27.10.92 be considered payment under protest since no letter filed on that date giving any grounds for payment under protest and subsequently also filed no representation for payment made under protest as per sub-rule 5 of Rule 233B?3.Can the let...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-08-2005
Reported in : 2006(32)PTC473(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.O.A. NO. 544 of 20051. This original application praying that this Hon'ble, Court be pleased to grant an order of Ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their directors, partners, servants, agents, dealers, distributors, retailers or assigns and each of them from in any way infringing the Patent No. 188847 of the Applicant or in any way using a process which infringes the said Patent No. 188347 of the applicant in the manufacture of any pharmaceutical and medicinal product/process or in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. O.A.NO. 545 of 2005This Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of Ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their directors, partners, servants, agents, dealers, distributors, retailers or assigns and each of them from in any way infringing the EMR No. EMR/1/03 of the applicant or in any way using any composition which infringes the said EMR No. EMR/1/03 by manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-21-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Mad125
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner is a political party. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is that, against none of the functionaries of the petitioner political party, legal action be taken on the role of each of such functionaries in having forwarded the claims made by individual applicants in Form-6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. In other words, if it is found that there is any falsity in Form-6 of individual applicants submitted in bulk by any of the functionaries of the petitioner political party as authorised by the Election Commission, such functionaries shall not be proceeded against legally. Mr. N. Jothi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took us through Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'RPA, 1950', and contended that a careful reading of that Section would exclude all others, except the person making a statement/declaration which is false, fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-13-2005
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ178Mad; (2005)4MLJ449
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in WP No. 44153 of 2002 is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 07th July, 2001 in Ref: PENSION/98/7073 in so far as he has deducted the qualifying period of service of the petitioner from 27 years and 215 days to 26 years and the order dated 11th October, 2002 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to calculate the pension and commutation accordingly and pay to the petitioner with arrears together with interest at 12% p.a. for delayed payment.2. W.P. No. 44157 of 2002 has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 23rd April, 2001 in Ref: PENSION/98/15331 in so far as he has deducted the qualifying period of service of the petitioner from 23 years and 6 days to 22 years and the order dated 11th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-22-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)CTC246; [2005(105)FLR870]
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 22.9.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The respondent is a widow. Her late husband was a driver in the service of the appellant Corporation, who had been appointed in 1979. He had some heart ailment due to which he was compulsorily retired on medical grounds by order dated 6.12.1995. Thereafter, on a representation made by him to the Corporation a settlement under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was reached under which he was re-employed as a mazdoor trainee by order dated 6.2.1996. However, four days thereafter i.e. on 10.2.1996 at the age of 44 he passed away. He was the only bread-winner of the family and he left behind him his widow (respondent) and two daughters.3. The Corporation refused to give compassionate appointment to the widow (respondent) taking a technical view of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-22-2005
Reported in : [2006]145STC453(Mad)
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner, claiming to be the largest exporter of sandal wood, prays for a mandamus to forbear the respondents from making any claim or demand for the payment of demurrage charges and penal charges from the petitioner in respect of the purchase orders issued by notices dated 7.9.1994, 8.9.1994 and 13.9.1994 by respondents-2 to 4 respectively.2. The petitioner was the successful bidder at the following auctions held for sale of sandal wood by the respondent/Forest Department:Sl. Place Date Quantity Amount Date of ConfirmationNo.1 Sathyamangalam 07/04/1994 23 M.Tonnes 48,81,500/- 13/9/1994 2 Salem 07/06/1994 63 M.Tonnes 1,43,48,000/- 09/08/1994 3 Tirupattur 07/08/1994 123.500 M.Tonnes 2,64,58,650/- 09/07/1994 3. According to the petitioner, all the confirmation orders were received by them on 30.9.1994. It is their further case that purchases were for export and hence, exempt from sales tax, as provided under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on : May-30-2005
Reported in : (2005)96ITD500(Chennai)
These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue and most of the issues involved are common. Therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.Before we proceed to decide individual appeals, we would like to note that principally there are three main issues for our adjudication and we think once these issues are determined, the appeals can be easily decided. Therefore, we proceed to examine these principal issues, which are as follows: (i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth-tax? (ii) Whether deduction of debt claimed is permissible under the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act? (i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth-tax? The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a sick industrial company and the company made a reference to Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR) under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-07-2005
Reported in : (2005)3MLJ149
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in the appeal in A.S. No. 851 of 1989 regarding the character of the Will left by one Palaniappa Chettiar (testator) and his wife Chinnammal @ Rangammal (testatrix) and the question is whether the Will left by them dated 26.9.1968 is a joint Will or a joint and mutual Will. The question that arises in A.S. No. 606 of 1989 is whether the Will executed by Chinnammal @ Rangammal dated 27.11.1980 is a true, valid and genuine Will. Apart from the two questions in both the appeals, other points that arise are, whether the suit has been properly instituted after getting proper leave of the Court under Section 92, C.P.C., whether the properties left by the testator and the testatrix are trust properties and whether the trust has been validly created and also other incidental questions regarding the maintainability of the appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:(a) The plaintiffs are the appellants in A.S. No. 851 ...
Tag this Judgment!