Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-2007
Reported in : (2008)2MLJ84
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, calling in question, the legality of the order of:(i) the third respondent, the Disciplinary Authority in and by which he has been imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement, (ii) the second respondent, the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the third respondent, the Disciplinary Authority and (iii) the first respondent, the Reviewing Authority rejecting the Review Application.2. The petitioner's case, in brief, as could be seen from his affidavit, is as under:a. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank in the year 1974 and was working as Branch Manager of the Kotturpuram Branch from 08.07.1993 to 31.03.1996. While was working as Branch Manager of the Kotturpuram Branch of Indian Bank in 1994, he was informed over telephone by the then Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) that one C.R. Viswanathan would get in touch with him regarding an International Women's Football Tournament in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-10-2007
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ9
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition was preferred by petitioner for a declaration that the Letter Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865, issued under Acts 24 and 25 of Victoria Chapter 104 containing 45 clauses forming part of the Rules of the High Court, Madras (Original Side) as null and void and for appropriate orders.2. Before discussing the stand taken by the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that by the amended Letters Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865, the High Court of Judicature at Madras was established, as evident from the preamble to the Letters Patent in question and quoted below and, thereby, the petitioner has practically challenged the establishment of the High Court before the same High Court:For the High Court of Judicature for the Presidency of Madras(28th December, 1865)Recitals of Acts 24 and 25 vic. C 104 - Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. To all to whom these presents hall come, greeti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-23-2007
Reported in : IV(2008)BC411; 2008(3)CTC416
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant in both the revision petitions.2. The petitioner in both these revisions is the defendant in O.S. No. 493/2003 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.3. The respondent herein has laid a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,51,636.86 with future interest from the revision petitioner/defendant in regard to the supply of textile goods. The suit was posted for filing written statement on 14.10.2003 and no written statement was filed.4. It is represented by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the case was not there in the cause list of the Court prepared and pasted in Court Hall of the trial Court and subsequently at the instance of respondent/plaintiff's counsel the bundle was taken up for hearing and at that point of time there was no representation on the side of the revision petitioner/defendant and the Trial Court was forced to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-05-2007
Reported in : LC2007(3)438; 2007(35)PTC542(Mad)
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The applicant in A.No. 4056 of 2006 is the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that it has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing interalia, biscuits and confectioneries. According to them, they had developed a new and original packet design, having several novel features in its shape, configuration and surface pattern. These designs were accepted and duly registered under Design Registration Nos. 185711, 185712 and 185713, dated 31.05.2001 in Class 09-01 under the provisions of Designs Act, 2000 and the Designs Rules, 2001. The applicant also developed two other new and original biscuit packet designs. These designs were also accepted and duly registered under Design Registration Nos. 188156 and. 188157, dated 18.02.2002 in Class 09-07 under the provision of Designs Act, 2000 and Designs Rules 2001. The registrations of the said designs are valid and subsisting. According to the applicant, the particular feature of the design is that the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-06-2007
Reported in : (2007)4MLJ1153
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. In the first writ petition, Novartis - a foreign company represented by it's Indian Power of Attorney holder, is the writ petitioner. In the second writ petition, Novartis India represented by it's power agent is the writ petitioner. The respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, amended by Patents (Amendment) Act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. However, in the first writ petition there was an additional prayer in addition to the relief asked for. The additional prayer was to direct the second respondent in that writ petition namely, the Controller General of Patents and Designs, to allow the patent application bearing No. 1602/NAS/98 filed by the petitioner seeking patent. However at a later stage, during the pendency of the writ petitions, M.P. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-30-2007
Reported in : [2009]311ITR389(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'A', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1348/Mds/2003 dated 04.08.2006 raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA for the assessment year 1999-2000?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the process of printing activity will amount to manufacture in order to quantify for the benefit under Section 80-IA?3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not following the judgment in the case of Western India Pharmaceuticals Services (P) Ltd. reported in : [1998]230ITR96(Bom) wherein it was held by the Bombay High Court that the activity of printing manufactures name on Pharmaceu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-19-2007
Reported in : LC2007(3)139; 2007(35)PTC436(Mad)
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendants against the fair and decretal order dated 26.3.2007 made in I.A. No. 141 of 2007 in O.S. No. 70 of 2007 by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, granting ex parte ad-interim injunction, pending disposal of the suit, restraining the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs/respondents Patent No: 197822.2. In all, seven CRPs have been filed, of which five relate to the infringement of Patent and two relate to the infringement of Trade Mark. In CRP Nos. 1188, 1189, 1226, 1454 and 1546 of 2007, Mr. Sanjeev Khandelwal is arrayed as the firs respondent and in CRP.Nos:1190 and 1227 of 2007, Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt., Ltd., is arrayed as the firs respondent. The Registration of Patents stands in the name of Mr. Sanjeev Khandelwal and the Registration of Trade Mark stands in the name of Khandelwal laboratories Pvt., Ltd., and as such there is no conflict in interests between the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-18-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)ARBLR261(Madras); 2007(5)CTC17; (2007)5MLJ257
R. Banumathi, J.1. These intra-Court Appeals are preferred against the common order made in O.P. Nos. 446/2002 and 78/2003, dismissing the original Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.2. Both the appeals arise out of common order. Since common points fall for consideration, both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. For convenience, M/s. Sree Amman Constructions is referred as Claimant/Contractor and the Railway Administration/Department is referred as 'Railway'.3. Brief facts which led to the arbitration are as follows:The Southern Railways called for tenders on 01.06.1995 in respect of the work 'JTJ-ED Section : contractor 12.54 Kms. CTR of Exg.90R/52 kg. Railways laid on CST.9/Wooden sleepers to 11.7 density with now 60 Kg/52 Kg. Rails on PSC Sleepers with elastic fastening between Km.219/31-231/3- U/L with PQRS equipment'. Contractor submitted its quotation for the above said work and the same was accepted by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-27-2007
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Mad)523; [2007]293ITR432(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred these appeals on a vexed substantial question of law as to whether the expenditure on construction of building in a leasehold premises would amount to revenue expenditure, contrary to the clear provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2.1. The relevant assessment years are 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. The assessee claimed the expenditure incurred by it on construction of a building, concededly on leasehold land, as revenue in nature. But, the Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure by orders dated 23.3.2004 and 7.2.2005 respectively. Against the said orders, the assessee preferred appeals, which were, by common order dated 21.9.2005 dismissed by the Commissioner, upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 2.2. Contending that Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Act would cover the situations of construction on premises taken on lease, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-09-2007
Reported in : 2007(3)CTC672; (2007)4MLJ650; 2008(1)SLJ568(NULL)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioners seek to quash the order dated 13.06.2000 passed by the first respondent Tribunal in O.A. No.658 of 1998 and to consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to regularise their services.2. The petitioners have been employed as Casual Daily Labourers (CDL) in Group D posts for the last two decades in the 4th respondent College (hereinafter referred to as 'the College') and have not been conferred permanent status by it despite their repeated representations. In O.A. Nos. 367 to 370 of 1992 filed by some of the CDLs seeking to regularise their services, the Tribunal directed College to absorb the petitioners in regular posts as and when vacancies arise and not to terminate them till such time. Since no response was forthcoming, another batch of applications was preferred in O.A. Nos.1789 and 1799 of 1992 in which the Tribunal directed the College to prepare a scheme for regularisation of the applicants within a period of three months and to fit in th...
Tag this Judgment!