Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Nov-29-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regulate the storage sale use and transport of fire crackers strictly as per the provisions of the Explosives Act 1884 and the rules framed thereunder under the Explosives Rules 2008 to see that during the festival season licence is not granted for sale of fire crackers in shops located nearby to hospitals schools temples etc. to adopt safety measures for sale of crackers by retail and wholesale and preventing loss of life.) 1. This is a suo motu public interest litigation initiated by this Court based on the newspaper report relating to the fire at Sivakasi shop killing eight persons, who were working in the scan centre situated by the side of the cracker shop and one person died subsequently. 2. When this matter came up for hearing on 21.10.2016, this Court passed the following order: Mr.N.Suthanthirarajan, M/s. Sri Ragavendra Fireworks shop,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-15-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying for a judgment and decree as against the defendant for the reliefs, stated therein.) 1. The plaintiff, is a well known pharmaceutical company in India, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing various pharmaceutical, medicinal and health related products. The plaintiff, at present, is ranked as fifth largest company, according to Retail Market Survey Report of the Organizational Research Group. The plaintiff, had applied for the registration of the Trade Mark PANTODAC in Application No.723200 on 30.10.1996 and also advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No.9999 Mega 3, dated 14.10.2003. According to the plaintiff, their gross sales turnover for the year ended 31.03.2010 was in excess of Rs.3,600 crores. 2. It is the furt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-10-2016
(Prayer: Suit with prayers for granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves, their servant or agents or any one claiming through or under them from committing an infringement of the plaintiff's Copy right in the artistic work 'ZINCOVIT' label by the use of the infringing BICAL label or any other label work or representation the use of which would be an infringement of the plaintiff's artistic work 'ZINCOVIT' Label; a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, either by themselves, their servant or agent or any one claiming through or under them from passing off or enabling others to pass off their goods as or for the well known and reputed goods of the plaintiff by using the BICAL Label for Pharmaceutical and/or Medicinal preparations or like goods or any other Label work or representation which is in any manner deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's well known and reputed 'ZINCOVIT' Label; direction to the defendant to render a tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-08-2016
M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/ Complainant. 2. According to the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant, he filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the Respondents in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 in C.C.No.83/2012 on the file of the trial Court. 3. It comes to be known that the trial Court, after contest, had acquitted the Respondents/Accused in C.C.No.83/2012 by means of Judgment dated 26.11.2015. 4. It transpires that the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant had filed the 'Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal' before this Court and the concerned papers were returned by the Registry on 09.06.2016 to comply with certain defects and a time of 10 days was granted in this regard. However, the Petitioner/Appellant could not comply with the defects in time and furthermore, the case papers were purported to have been misplaced in Petitioner's Counsel's Office and the same was traced out. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-07-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and Decretal Order in I.A. No.1471 of 2012 in O.S. No.121 of 2012 dated 4.7.2013, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Poonamallee.) 1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No.121 of 2012 is the Revision Petitioner before this Court. Challenging the Order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee in I.A. No.1471 of 2012 in O.S. No.121 of 2012, rejecting the request made by the Petitioner for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and directing him to inspect the Suit property, measure the same, note down the physical features, with the help of respective Taluk Surveyors and submit his Report along with Rough Sketch in the said O.S. No.121 of 2012. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that she has purchased the Suit schedule of property situated at Thundalam Village, comprised in S. No.64 of 1, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, measuring to an extent of 1062 sq. ft. f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-04-2016
M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 121 of 2012 is the revision petitioner before this Court. Challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee in I.A. Noo.1471 of 2012 in O.S. No. 121 of 2012, rejecting the request made by the petitioner for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and directing him to inspect the suit property, measure the same, note down the physical features, with the help of respective Taluk Surveyors and submit his report along with rough sketch in the said O.S. No. 121 of 2012. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that she has purchased the suit schedule of property situated at Thundalam Village, comprised in S. No. 64/1, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, measuring to an extent of 1062 sq. ft. from (1) K. Ramu, (2) K. Babu and (3) K. Shanmugam, who are residing at No. 50, Perumal Koil street, Numbal, Chennai-77, have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of K. Venkatesan S/o Late.Kathirvelu, residing at No. 9, Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-02-2016
(Prayer: O.S.A.No.333 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in Application No.1293 of 2008 in E.P.No.132 of 2003 dated 18.09.2009. O.S.A.No.334 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in Application No.1294 of 2008 in E.P.No.132 of 2003 dated 18.09.2009. O.S.A.No.335 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in Application No.1295 of 2008 in E.P.No.134 of 2003 dated 18.09.2009. O.S.A.No.336 of 2009 filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in Application No.1296 of 2008 in E.P.No.134 of 2003 dated 18.09.2009.) R. Mahadevan, J. 1. These appeals are filed against the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by this Court in A.Nos.1293 and 1294 of 2008 in E.P.No.132 of 2003 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P (NPD) No.541 of 2015 filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 16.09.2014 in I.A.No.18953 of 2013 in O.S.No.8957 of 2011 on the file of VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.) Common Order 1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.18953 of 2013 in O.S.No.8957 of 2011 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants 3 and 5 have filed Civil Revision Petition in CRP (NPD) No.541 of 2015. 2. Civil Revision Petition in CRP (NPD) No.4973 of 2014 has been filed by the defendants 1, 2 and 4, challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.6698 of 2014 in O.S.No.8957 of 2011. 3. Since both the orders were passed in the same suit i.e, in O.S.No.8957 of 2011, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order. 4. Heard Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the revision petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions and Mr.V. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal orders dated 16.09.2015 in I.A.No.506 of 2014 in O.S.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur.) 1. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.506 of 2014 in O.S.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur, the 1st defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.268 of 2008 for specific performance. 3. The brief case of the petitioner/1st defendant is as follows: Since the 1st defendant failed to appear before the trial Court, she was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 18.09.2009. Subsequently, the 1st defendant filed an application in I.A.No.506 of 2014 to condone the delay of 957 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the 1st defendant has stated that the 2nd defendant is her daught...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-20-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1980 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.260 of 2015 dated 21.03.2016 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai reversing the fair and decreetal order made in R.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2009 on the file of the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai dated 24.03.2015.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.260 of 2015 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai reversing the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2009 on the file of the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the landlord has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The petitioner/landlord filed the R.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2009 for eviction on the ground of demolition and re-construction and additional accommodation. 3. The brief case of the petitioner/landlord is as follows: (i) According to the ...
Tag this Judgment!