Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-18-2009
Reported in : LC2009(2)139; 2009(40)PTC689(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. O.S.A. No. 91 of 2008 has been filed by the Appellant as against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1272 of 2007 in C.S. No. 979 of 2007, in and by which, the Appellant's application for an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent herein from in any way interfering with the manufacturing and marketing of the Appellant's products using Internal Combustion (IC) engine with 3 valves and 2 spark plugs pending the disposal of C.S. No. 979 of 2007 was rejected.2. O.S.A. No. 92 of 2008 has also been filed by the same Appellant challenging the order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1357 of 2007, in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007, wherein, the Respondent's prayer for an ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant herein from in any manner infringing the Respondent's Patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said Patent No. 195904 and/or from manufacturing, marketing etc., for sale or exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-04-2009
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ990
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in these writ petitions are to quash the orders dated 18.5.2009 and 20.5.2009, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, insofar as W.P. Nos. 9934 and 9935 of 2009 are concerned; the order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, insofar as W.P. No. 10264 of 2009; and the orders dated 30.5.2009 and 8.6.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, insofar as W.P. Nos. 10432 and 10730 of 2009 are concerned.2. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 9935 of 2009 is as follows:(a) The petitioner is an Electronics Engineer by vocation and he invented Plurality of Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) and Plurality of Blue Tooth Technology and its viability using switch circuit technology. According to petitioner, due to his invention, multiple sims can be used at the same time in one instrument.(b) It is claimed by the petitioner that by changi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-11-2009
Reported in : LC2010(1)37
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. Both applications were filed by the applicant/plaintiff.2. The first application is for the grant of an interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the work titled 'FLYGUARD' in respect of the invention of the plaintiff under the name/title 'e-Passport(Smartcard)' and also as 'TCS e-Passport Solution' or such other name or title which are in any manner identical and similar with the copyright in the work on the plaintiff's invention/work 'FLYGUARD'.3. The second application is for an identical prayer for infringing of the Patent for the invention made by the applicant/plaintiff.4. The suit was filed by the applicant/plaintiff for the very same prayers and also to direct the surrender to the plaintiff the materials accumulated by the defendants in this regard and for a further direction to render true and faithful accounts of profits earned by the defendants.5. It is claimed by the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-14-2009
Reported in : LC2010(1)3
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. These three applications were filed by the applicant/plaintiff.2. The applicant has filed a suit in C.S. No. 651 of 2005 for various reliefs including permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the soluble double metal salt of HCA in violation of the plaintiff's process Patent Nos. 182487, the anti obesity beverages in market in violation of the plaintiff's process patent No. 182488, the soluble double metal salt of HCA in market in violation of the plaintiff's process patent Nos. 182489, 182490, 182810 and 183849 and the US product patent Nos. 6160172 and 6395296 B1 and for further reliefs of delivery to the plaintiff for destruction all offending materials, stocks, booklets and other materials including raw material, inputs, work in progress finished goods manufactured by the defendants in violation of plaintiff's process patents for double metal salt of HCA and also for a direction to defendant to render true account of profits ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-27-2009
Reported in : 2009(171)LC254(Madras); 2010(249)ELT324(Mad)
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The above writ appeals are directed against the common order passed in W.P. Nos. 336 and 341 of 2009, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.2. In W.P. Nos. 10330, 12250 and 13366 of 2009, the petitioners seek to quash the public notice No. 140/2008 dated 31.12.2008 and to direct the first respondent therein to accept the candidature of the petitioners for the grant of licence under Regulation 9(1) of the CHARL, 2004 so as to act as Customs House Agent.3. Since the issues involved in the writ petitions as well as in the writ appeals are identical, both the writ petitions and writ appeals are heard together and this Common Judgment is passed.4. (i) The case of the appellants and the writ petitioners is that they are engaged in the work of clearance of goods through Customs for the past several years and they are claiming that they have all passed the examination prescribed as per Regulation No. 9 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-23-2009
Reported in : (2009)8MLJ1615
ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal dated 20.07.1998 in D. No. 401 of 1995.2. The facts of the case are as follows:(i) One S. Vasudevan, S/o Srinivasa Iyer of Manarkudi held an extent of 55.03 ordinary acres equivalent to 32.80 standard acres as on the crucial date 15.02.1970. Since the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act 58 of 1961 as amended by Act 17 of 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was attracted, proceedings were initiated under the Act. The holding of the land owner included the minor son's property to an extent of 18.33 ordinary acres equivalent to 14.11 standard acres. While calculating the holding of the land owner, the Authorized Officer excluded an extent of 18.33 ordinary acres, equivalent to 14.11 standard acres belonging to the minor son Narasimhan, who derived the property pursuant to a Deed of Partition, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-13-2009
Reported in : [2009]152CompCas116(Mad); [2009]92SCL133(Mad)
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision petitioners/R2 and R3/D2 and D3 have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 11.06.2008 in I.A.8812/08 in O.S.3737/08 passed by the learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, in granting ad interim injunction till 17.06.2008, on an application filed by the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.8812/08 has inter alia observed that 'the original minutes book was placed before me, It appears that the Company passed a resolution on 13.01.2006 itself not to allot shares. Primafacie case made out. Ad interim injunction is granted till 17.06.2008. Notice to the respondents, etc.,'3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/R2 and R3/D2 and D3 contends that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide on the issue inasmuch as the same issue is pending before the Company Law Board Bench, Southern Region, Chennai in C.P.94/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-17-2009
Reported in : (2010)228CTR(Mad)405; [2010]321ITR12(Mad); [2010]186TAXMAN111(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records in M.P. No. 35/Mds/2000 in I.T.A. No. 1199 of 1989 dated 30.11.2000 of the second respondent and quash the same.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner/assessee is a Company registered under the Companies Act and derives income from various sources. In respect of the assessment year 1985-86 relevant to the previous year ended 31st March, 1985, the petitioner filed a return of income on 22.7.1985 declaring a net loss of Rs. 32,99,289/-, which was revised by filing a revised return on 26.2.1988 declaring a loss of Rs. 32,80,700/- subject to the adjustment of the loss brought forward from the earlier years. The first respondent 'Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 30.3.1988 and determined the total income at Rs. 1,27,95,570/- by making various additions and disallowing various claims made by the petitioner.3. The petitioner filed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on : Nov-30-2009
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The complainant took his wife to their family Dr. Revathi Ananthasubramaniam., for checkup, since his wife had noticed lump under her right breast. At her request, series of tests were conducted, and after scrutinizing the results of the test, the doctor confirmed that the complainants wife is having a problem of Carcinoma. To confirm the complainants wife decided to have second opinion and in this view they have approached the 1st opposite party, who is in 2nd opposite party hospital. He advised to consult the 3rd opposite party by name Dr.A.N.Vaidheeswaran. The 3rd opposite party, after physical examination, confirmed it to be a case of carcinoma. Thus the complainant hired the services of opposite parties 1 to 3 for consideration. 2. On 30.9.1997, at the request of the 1st opposite party, various tests such as X-ray, chest PA view, ECG were taken, and after obtaining the test report, wife of the complainant was admitted in the 2nd opposite party h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-01-2009
Reported in : (2009)8MLJ969
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. Summary of allegation in the common affidavit filed by the respondent herein:1.(a) The petitioner filed suit to declare the order of suspension of the club dated 27.01.2009 as against the Rules and Bye-laws of Madras Gymkhana Club (hereinafter referred to as 'Club'), null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants' club, their men etc., in any manner interfering with the petitioner's continued membership rights of the Club pursuant to the suspension order dated 27.1.2009. He has been a member in the Club for the past 22 years. He had impeccable track record in the Club and he had served as member and captain of golf team of the Club.1.(b) On 31.12.2008 the Club arranged a New Year eve party in the Club premises. He had casual conversation with Mr. H.M. Belgamwala and Mr. Abishek Gupta, who are closely associated with the second and third respondents, both keen snooker players and one Mr. Abishek Gupta who is also a part of the cricket...
Tag this Judgment!