Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-02-2012
Reported in : 2012(8)MLJ600
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 10.06.2009 in W.P.No.9355 of 2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge.) M. VENUGOPAL, J. The Appellant/Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 10.06.2009 in W.P.No.9355 of 2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the order in W.P.No.9355 of 2000 on 10.06.2009, has, among other things, observed that '... it is clear that the petitioner is far junior to the third respondent in the post of Assistant, which is the feeder category to the post of Superintendent. Hence, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected and the claim of the third respondent was considered by the second respondent and approved by the first respondent. Petitioner has not made out a case on merits to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Superintendent' and consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition without costs. 3. The Writ Petition av...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-30-2012
Reported in : 2012(8)MLJ435
O.A.Nos.143 and 144 of 2011 were filed by the applicants / plaintiffs seeking for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from preventing the participation of the first applicant in the business and affairs of the 12th respondent company and also for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 11 from in any manner dealing with the shares, properties of the 12th respondent more fully set out in the schedule to the petition, including but not limited to sale, transfer, merger, de-merger, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering of the said shares / properties. 2. The applicants are the plaintiffs in the main suit. The suit is for the grant of various reliefs including declaration that the transfer of 12000 shares of the first applicant in the 12th defendant company, the details of which were mentioned in Schedule 'E', to the defendants 1 and 5 as null and void and for a direction to 1st and 5th defendants jointly and several...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-30-2012
Reported in : 2012(5)LW626
1. C.S.No.208 of 2012 was filed by M/s.R.K. Productions Private Limited. C.S.No.294 of 2012 was filed by Creative Commercials Media and Entertainment Ltd. Both suits were filed as John Doe suits. But the label "John Doe" was replaced by Ashok Kumar, an unknown person of India. 2. The first suit relates to a Tamil Film named as "3". It is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and other unknown persons infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the cinematograph film "3" by copying, recording, reproducing or allowing, camcording or communicating or allowing others to communicate or making available or distributing or duplicating or displaying or releasing or showing or uploading or downloading or exhibiting or playing and in any manner communicating the plaintiff's movie "3" without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate or infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the said cinematograph film "3" through different mediums inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-19-2012
(Prayer: W.P.No.25721 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ declaring Sections 3(3-B), 3(4), 3(9), 4-I, 7-A(1) & (3), 7-B(1) & (2) and S.10(1) ["impugned provisions"] of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 (Act No.X of 1939) ["Entertainment Tax Act"] as amended by Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2011 (Act No.XXV of 2011) ["2011 Amendment Act"] and the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 as revised by Notification G.O.Ms.No.125 dt. 12.10.2011 issued by the Commercial Taxes and Registration (c1) Department ["Revised Rules"] in so far as Entertainment Tax is sought to be levied by the respondents on the Petitioner's direct-to-home services ["DTH Services"] as ultra vires and unconstitutional. W.P.No.27070 of 2011is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ declaring Sections 3(3-B), 3(4), 3(9), 4-I, 7-A(1) & (3), 7-B(1) & (2) and S.10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Entertai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on : Oct-08-2012
J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER The case of the complainant is as follows: 2. The complainants husband B.V. Ramana Rao, aged 46 years, employed as Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai, went to the opposite partys hospital on 6-4-2007 for Executive Health Check Up, to which the bank officials are entitled. In the hospital various tests were conducted by the opposite parties. As per the Directors instructions, the hospital authorities informed the complainant that there was loss of weight up to 8 Kgs. and they suggested him to take CT Scan of the abdomen. Accordingly, on 10.04.2007, he underwent CT Scan of abdomen; and after that he fell down unconscious. The hospital staff helped him and called the Doctor who informed the complainant that he had low BP and that is the reason why he became unconscious and he was taken to Intensive Care Unit and they came to know that anesthesia was not given properly and that the Sodium contrast was not suitable and hence he became unconscious...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-21-2012
K.CHandRU, J. 1. Both applications were filed by the applicant / plaintiff, seeking for an interim injunction with reference to an infringement of the applicant's registered patent bearing No.198122 in respect of Integral Cam Operated Rotary Switch by manufacture and sale of products identical to the applicant's products and also seeking for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner passing off Cam Operated Rotary Switches manufactured and sold by them by using identical or deceptively similar product, same or similar trade dress, colour scheme, get-up and layout. 2. Pending notices on the Original Applications, no ex parte order of injunction was granted. A counter affidavit, dated 09.04.2011 has been filed in both original applications. The applicant has filed a reply affidavit, dated 25.04.2011. 3. The applicant / plaintiff had filed a suit for the grant of similar relief of permanent in nature. On suit notice being served, the first defendant / first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3rd Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used durin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent herein viz., The Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.No.142 of 2008 in Petition No.13 of 2007 in I.D.No.4 of 2004 and quash the order passed therein dated 23.09.2008 and which was received by us on 20.10.2008.) 1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Management, seeking to challenge an order passed by the first respondent second Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.No.142 of 2008 in Petition No.13 of 2007 in I.D.No.4 of 2004 dated 23.09.2008 and seeks to set aside the same. 2. The said petition was filed by the Management under Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 read with Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act to eschew and delete the word which occurred wrongly in Paragraphs 8 and 11 in their Petition No.13 of 2007 in I.D.No.4 of 2004 and to read the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-24-2012
(Prayer: Appeal against the fair and decretal order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.02.2012 in O.P.No.678 of 2010.) P. Devadass, J. The first respondent, namely, Kotak Mahendra Bank Ltd., Chennai, in O.P.No.678 of 2010, aggrieved by the Fair Order and Decretal Order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.02.2012 setting aside the Arbitrator's award dated 04.05.2010, has directed this Original Side Appeal. 2. Let us notice the circumstances that led to the filing of this intra-Court Appeal. 3. Appellant is a Banking Company. It gives various kinds of loans. One of it is Property Loan. It is also known as Home Finance. On 29.12.2005, Respondents 1 to 6 (petitioners 1 to 6 in O.P.No.678 of 2010) were sanctioned a property loan of Rs.51 Lakhs. There are two modes of charging the interest. One is, fixed interest. The other one is, adjustable interest rate (AIR). However, there is concession of 1%. Under the second mode, the interest will remain fixed for 12 quarters, namely, for 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-21-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in the proceedings No.MCI-34(41)/2012-Med / 112316, dated 19.6.2012 (signed on 18.6.2012) and the further proceedings No.MCI-34(41)/2012-Med, dated 30.06.2012 sent by e-mail and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to grant second renewal of permission to the petitioner institution for third batch of MBBS.) 1. This writ petition was filed by the D.D. Medical College and D.D. Hospital, represented by its Chairman. This writ petition was filed to challenge an order of the respondent Medical Council of India (for short MCI), dated 19.06.2012 and further proceedings dated 30.6.2012 sent by e-mail and after setting aside these two orders, seeks for a consequential direction to grant second renewal of permission to the petitioner institution for starting the third batch of M...
Tag this Judgment!