Court : Chennai
(Prayer: The suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, for the following reliefs:- (a) to pass a judgment and decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agent/agents, or any person claiming through or under the defendant, from in any manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff viz., Indian VCD and/ or DVD rights, over the Tamil feature film Aasal , in any manner whatsoever; (b) pass a judgment and decree of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to deliver and handover to the plaintiff all the infringing VCDs and DVDs of the Tamil feature film Aasal . 1. The suit is filed for a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, from in any manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff viz., Indian VCD and/or DVD rights, over the Tamil feature film Aasal , in any manner whatsoever; and for a Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to deliver and handover to the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayers: S.A.No.657 of 1999: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 18.12.1997 rendered in A.S.No.9 of 1997 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras confirming the decree and judgment dated 26.09.1994 rendered in O.S.No.815 of 1992 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. S.A.No.657 of 2007: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2006 rendered in A.S.No.363 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.4), Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2005 made in O.S.No.7708 of 1997 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Judge at Madras.) Common Judgment: S.A.No.657 of 2007 1. The first defendant in O.S.No.815 of 1992 is the appellant in S.A.No.657 of 1999. The suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants men or agents or any other person from co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN:330203524802/2013-14 dated 17.11.2015 and quash the same as being violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and hence invalid and illegal.) Common Order: 1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are registered dealers on the file of the respective Assessing Officers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [in short TNVAT Act ] and or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [in short CST Act ]. These cases were clubbed together as a common issue arises pertaining to the reversal of Input Tax Credit [in short ITC ] effected by the respective Assessing Officers of the registered dealers. Therefore, it may not be necessary to refer to the facts and circumstances of each case and suffice to take such of those facts, which are necessary to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.06.2015 made in I.T.A.Nos.434, 442 and 443/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.) Common Judgment: Rajiv Shakdher, J. C.M.P.No.2395 and 2396 of 2017 (Dispense with): 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. T.C.(A)Nos.139 to 141 of 2017: 2. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue as against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), dated 19.06.2015. 3. By virtue of the impugned judgment, a common order was passed qua Assessment Years (A.Y.s) 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 4. The common issue, which arose before the Tribunal for consideration was, whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short 'the Act') should be confirmed qua the Assessee. 5. The brief facts, which are required to be noticed are as follows: 5.1. In the concer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer in S.A.No.52 of 2008: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 30.08.2007 made in A.S.No.110 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2006 in O.S.No.227 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram. S.A.No.53 of 2008: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 30.08.2007 made in A.S.No.115 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2006 in O.S.No.99 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram.) Common Judgment: 1. The above two second appeals are directed against the judgements of the Lower Appellate Court, one reversing the judgments passed in the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and two dismissing the suit filed for specific performance. 2. The appellants are the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayers: A.S.No.963 of 2008: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the Decree and Judgment passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 24.06.2008 in O.S.No.1862 of 2007. A.S.No.485 of 2011: This appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code against the against the Judgment and decree dated 24.06.2008 passed by the Hon'ble VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.1862 of 2007.) Common Judgment: 1. The above appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.1862 of 2007 dated 24.06.2008. The suit in O.S.No.1862 of 2007 was filed by the appellant in A.S.No.963 of 2008 seeking a money decree for a sum of Rs.6,86,613/- with interest at 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.5,53,720/-. 2. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.5,53,720/- represents the damages caused to the goods of the plaintiff stored ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records made in impugned order in Na.Ka.M1/17065/2016 dated Nil February 2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Record Clerk in the office of the Adi Dravidar and ST Welfare Office, Villupuram District to secure the ends of justice.) 1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the son of one Ammavasi, who was employed as a Night Watchman in the Government Adi Dravidar Students Hostel and he died in harness on 08.11.2005 and on account of the same, the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 07.02.2017 as Record Clerk and the petitioner has also jointed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay Grade Pay arrears from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005 as per the petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2016.) 1. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner would aver that her husband, namely S.Sundaram was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher at Municipal Higher Secondary School, Gudiyatham and Vellore District on 06.12.1966 and he was conferred with the benefit of Selection Grade on 05.12.1976 and he was promoted as Tamil Pandit and awarded Special Grade on 27.02.1980 and he retired from service on 30.06.2002 and his last drawn pay was Rs.8,500/-. The petitioner would further submit that as per official memorandum dated 28.01.2013 in F.No.38/37/08-PandPW(A), Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Grade Pay is to be taken into co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to disburse the payment relating to gratuity, surrender leave salary i.e. Earned leave balance as on 30.06.2013, earned leave encashment, social welfare fund, IRTT amount and other monetary benefits relating to the deceased Shenreddy to the petitioners by calculating DA eligible as per newly implemented scheme with interest at 12% per annum with effect from 01.07.2013 within stipulated time.) 1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The 1st petitioner's husband Shenreddy joined the service as a Driver in the respondent Corporation on 22.11.1986 and was promoted as Selection Grade Driver and retired from service on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that though her husband has retired as early as on 30.06.2013, the retiral/terminal benefits such as gratuity,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer:-Criminal original petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.10 of 2016 on the file of the Station House Officer, Lawspet Police Station, Puducherry.) Bail petition. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 364, 302, 404, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 3. Petitioners are A-4 and A-5 in this case. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even taking the allegations as such, neither an offence under Section 364 IPC nor an offence under Section 302 of IPC nor an offence under Section 404 IPC is attracted towards the petitioners. If at all, it could be only under Section 201 IPC. It would be screening of the offence, Of course, in connection with a murder case. Even then it will not be a capital offence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court below has not applied the relevant legal provisions correctly. As per law, the petitioners are entitled to be granted bail. But they were denied bail. Their detention ...
Tag this Judgment!