Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i)S.Chandrasekar, (ii) S.Thara and (iii)K.Ragurammun and Shankar Amarnath by virtue of the re-constitution and now the firm comprised of four partners, S.Chandrasekar, S.Thara,K.Ragurammun and Shankar Amarnath by virtue of the re-constitution deed. The partnership deed dated 01.07.2012 and the re-

constitution deed and the registration copy are all filed along with the written statement. The first defendant M/s.N.C.Arya and Snuff and cigar Company is the registered owner of the trade mark Nos.454103, 454106, 454109, 592763, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  C.S.(Comm.Div).Nos.605 and 882 of 2013 and 587 of 2015 180449, 180440, 559308, 178484, 179704 alone is true. The first defendant is represented by the Managing Partner V.Anuradha by virtue of the authorisation letter dated 27.10.2011 to assign the right of registered trade mark manufacturing and marketing of all products in India and abroad for a consideration of Rs.75 lakhs. The authorisation letter itself is a forged and fabricated document. The authorisation letter is of doubtful origin. The alleged signatures of the partners, namely S.Chandrasekhar and S.Thara are found on the bottom of the page, whereas the contents of the document are of four lines which is on the top of the page. There is almost an half a foot gap between the contents of the letter and the signatures of the other two partners authorising Anuradha. Apart from the said fact, the authorisation letter said to have been notarised by one R.Jayachandran, Advocate and Notary bearing Registration No.81 of 2011. In the photocopy of documents annexed along with the plaint, the date of notarisation is not clear. The date of notarisation appears to be made on 14th August and the particulars of the year are totally illegible. The authorisation letter is dated 27.10.2011, if so, the notarisation could not have been given on 14.08.2011. Even otherwise, there is no chance for giving notarisation since both the partners Chandrasekaran and Thara were not present and admit the alleged signature before the said notary at any point of time. The aforesaid circumstances narrated clearly proves and establishes that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  C.S.(Comm.Div).Nos.605 and 882 of 2013 and 587 of 2015 authorisation letter is a rank forgery and the same is concocted for the purpose of filing the suit.