![[12/2, 11:05] Patty Jeganathan Mhc Advt: Sekar, when tv, cell phone were not there, names were printed in murasoli and your dinakara. Now you are posting names good. Youngsters are happy. [12/2, 11:10] Patty Jeganathan Mhc Advt: Sekar, pmk K.Balu advocate is filing defamation complaint against Bharathy in Egmore court. You know, legal principles, ” COUNTER CLAIM”. Will be interesting. [12/2, 11:11] Sekarreporter: 🙏🙏](http://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Full order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.19896 of 2002 and WMP.No.27455 of 2002 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division I) Ltd.,
- Previous story Kabilan Mhc Advt: Sekar Sir…. Can you please have this Judgment Reported/Published/Circulated in your sekarreporter.com and Twitter? Judgment in Item 5 (WP 15032 of 2021) before the FIRST BENCH on 23-07-2021 Writ Petition filed in Public Interest by Residents Society of Bommayarpalayam
Recent Posts
- Cont.P.N0.1538 ofCon(.1′.N0.1538 of 2023w.p.Nos.M429, & 31440 or 2023.p.Nos.149(), 1494, 1495, 1496, 1498, 1502, 1503 & 1506 of 2924S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.The Special Officer now appointed by the Government states that she attend’Kalaimaghal Sabha’ Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would oppose by stating that it is a statutory appointment to deal with several crores of public money, where large scale irregularities and illegalities are identified. Therefore, appointment of Special Officer to work one day in a week would be in-sufficient to deal with the affairs of ‘Kalaimaghal Sabha.’ That apart, the Special Officer has to give evidences before the Civil Courts, where suits are pending for recovery of money, property etc., wherein several crores of rupees are involved.
- Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that on verifying the challenged order it is proved that the respondent regarded the timely payment of the applicant of the due amounts for the variance between the GSTR 1 and 3B dated January 9, 2023. Even after the consideration the respondent incorrectly mentioned on Page 23 of the transcript that levied entity loses to settle tax liabilities within 15 days of obtaining the notice on 17th March 2023. The same claim opposes the documented proof.
- Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala released a directory of designated senior advocates brought out by Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates Forum and Justice R. Mahadevan, the seniormost judge of the High Court, received the first copy in Chennai on April 24, 2024
- today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes 134 SC : Ahmad Ali quraishi vs state of Uttar pradesh : Rejection.of application under section.156(3) CRPC does not preclude a complainant to file a complaint under section 200 CRPC
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.A. No.1181 of 2024 andC.M.P.Nos.8549 and 8550 of 2024Ashok Leyland Limited rep. By itsAuthorized Signatory Satish S.M.,No.1, Sardar Patel Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. AppellantVs.1.The Controller of Patents & Designs,The Patent Office, ChennaiPatent Office Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.2.Tata Motors Ltd.,Bombay House,24, Homi Mody Street,Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai – 400 001. .. RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in W.P. (IPD) No.1 of 2024 in respect of post-grant opposition proceedings against the Appellant’s patent number IN387429 (Patent application number 201641025668 dated 27.07.2016) and consequently direct respondent No.1 to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and to consider the matter afresh by re-constituting a fresh Opposition Board for providing a fresh joint recommendation pending disposal of thepresent writ appeal.For Appellant : Mr.M.S.BharathFor Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General for R1Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Ms.Archana Shankar for R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.Sundar, J.)Captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (hereinafter ‘captioned WA’ forthe sake of convenience and clarity) is an intra-court appeal and it is directed against an order dated 15.03.2024 made by Intellectual Property Division of this Court i.e., by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(IPD) No.1 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos.1 and 2thereat.
More
Recent Posts
- Cont.P.N0.1538 ofCon(.1′.N0.1538 of 2023w.p.Nos.M429, & 31440 or 2023.p.Nos.149(), 1494, 1495, 1496, 1498, 1502, 1503 & 1506 of 2924S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.The Special Officer now appointed by the Government states that she attend’Kalaimaghal Sabha’ Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would oppose by stating that it is a statutory appointment to deal with several crores of public money, where large scale irregularities and illegalities are identified. Therefore, appointment of Special Officer to work one day in a week would be in-sufficient to deal with the affairs of ‘Kalaimaghal Sabha.’ That apart, the Special Officer has to give evidences before the Civil Courts, where suits are pending for recovery of money, property etc., wherein several crores of rupees are involved.
- Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that on verifying the challenged order it is proved that the respondent regarded the timely payment of the applicant of the due amounts for the variance between the GSTR 1 and 3B dated January 9, 2023. Even after the consideration the respondent incorrectly mentioned on Page 23 of the transcript that levied entity loses to settle tax liabilities within 15 days of obtaining the notice on 17th March 2023. The same claim opposes the documented proof.
- Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala released a directory of designated senior advocates brought out by Tamil Nadu Senior Advocates Forum and Justice R. Mahadevan, the seniormost judge of the High Court, received the first copy in Chennai on April 24, 2024
- today 4 law tips Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes 134 SC : Ahmad Ali quraishi vs state of Uttar pradesh : Rejection.of application under section.156(3) CRPC does not preclude a complainant to file a complaint under section 200 CRPC
- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.A. No.1181 of 2024 andC.M.P.Nos.8549 and 8550 of 2024Ashok Leyland Limited rep. By itsAuthorized Signatory Satish S.M.,No.1, Sardar Patel Road,Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. AppellantVs.1.The Controller of Patents & Designs,The Patent Office, ChennaiPatent Office Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.2.Tata Motors Ltd.,Bombay House,24, Homi Mody Street,Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai – 400 001. .. RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed in W.P. (IPD) No.1 of 2024 in respect of post-grant opposition proceedings against the Appellant’s patent number IN387429 (Patent application number 201641025668 dated 27.07.2016) and consequently direct respondent No.1 to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and to consider the matter afresh by re-constituting a fresh Opposition Board for providing a fresh joint recommendation pending disposal of thepresent writ appeal.For Appellant : Mr.M.S.BharathFor Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General for R1Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Ms.Archana Shankar for R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.Sundar, J.)Captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (hereinafter ‘captioned WA’ forthe sake of convenience and clarity) is an intra-court appeal and it is directed against an order dated 15.03.2024 made by Intellectual Property Division of this Court i.e., by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(IPD) No.1 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos.1 and 2thereat.