Chennai Court July 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 3 of about 37 results (0.009 seconds)T.i. Muhammad Zumoon Sahib Vs. Fathimunnissa Alias Bibijan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad80
(1) There are not merits in this appeal. The suit was for an injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing a registered trade mark. Admittedly one Muhomed Yoonus Sahib was the person in whose name the said trade mark was duly registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, the trade mark being " 708 Yoonus Beedi" Yoonus died on 8-5-1953 and it is not denied that the plaintiffs-respondents are his heirs. After the death of Yoonus the Plaintiffs continued to run his business and to manufacture and sell beedies under the said trade mark. They found that the defendant was also manufacturing and selling beedies under a similar trade mark. Hence they brought the action out of which this appeal arises.The only plea which was put forward with some force in the trial Court is that covered by the issue "Are the plaintiffs not entitled to bring this suit in the absence of registry in their name?" This plea was apparently based on two sections of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, Ss. 21 and...
Tag this Judgment!Express Newspapers (Private), Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ793Mad
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 24 July 1958 eight employees of the Dinamani Press in Madurai refused to do some work which was allotted to them. Thereupon the management framed charges against them, obtained their explanation, held an enquiry and eventually dismissed them. An industrial dispute was raised and on 16 October 1958, the Government of Madras referred two questions for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, With the first of these questions we are not concerned. The second question was whether the termination of the services of the eight workmen who had been dismissed by the Dinamani Press was justified, and if not, what relief the dismissed workers were entitled to. The tribunal found that the dismissal of the first four was justified and that they were not entitled to any relief. So far as individuals 5 to 8 were concerned, the tribunal held that their dismissal was wrongful and that they should be reinstated with one-half of their back wages. The management of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Express Newspapers (Private) Limited, Proprietor of ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ96
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 24th July, 1958, eight employees of the Dinamani Press in Madurai refused to do some work which was allotted to them. Thereupon the management framed charges against them, obtained their explanation, held an enquiry and eventually dismissed them. An industrial dispute was raised and on 16th October, 1958, the Government of Madras referred two questions for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. With the first of these questions we are not concerned. The second question was whether the termination of the services of the eight workmen who had been dismissed by the Dinamani Press was justified, and if not, what relief the dismissed workers were entitled to. The Tribunal found that the dismissal of the first four was justified and that they were not entitled to any relief. So far as individuals 5 to 8 were concerned, the Tribunal held that their dismissal was wrongful and that they should be reinstated with one-half of their back wages. The managem...
Tag this Judgment!T.i. Muhammad Zumoon Sahib Vs. Fathimunnisa Alias Bibijan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ270
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. There are no merits in this appeal. The suit was for are injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing a registered trade mark. Admittedly one Mahomed Yoonus Sahib was the person in whose name the said trade mark was duly registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, the trade mark being '703 Yoonus Beedi'. Yoonus died on 8th May, 1953 and it is not denied that the plaintiffs-respondents are his heirs. After the death of Yoonus the plaintiffs continued to run his business and to manufacture and sell beedis under the said trade mark. They found that the defendant was also manufacturing and selling beedis under a similar trade mark. Hence they brought the action out of which this appeal arises. The only plea which was put forward with some force in the trial Court is that covered by the issue 'Are the plaintiffs not entitled to bring this suit in the absence of registry in their name?' This plea was apparently based on two sections of the Trade Mark...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abdullah Sahib Vs. Syed Rahmatulla Sahib Alias
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad274
Ramachandra Iyer, J. (1) This appeal arises from the decree in O. S. No. 39 of 1952 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore. The first plaintiff is the appellant. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted by five persons, claiming as heirs of one Syed Akbar Sahib, who died on 25-7-1940, for partition and separate possession of their share of properties. Syed Akbar Sahib left behind him his widow, Baju Bi, the 4th plaintiff, four sons and two daughters. Of them, one son, Syed Ahamad Sahib, and a daughter, Syadana Bibi, are now dead. The interest of the deceased daughter, Syadana Bi, has devolved upon the other heirs by virtue of a compromise arrangement with her husband, one of her heirs. Syed Ahamad Sahib died on 3-10-1951, leaving behind him defendants 1 to 5 to the suit, as heirs.According to the plaintiffs, the late Syed Akbar Sahib left behind him the properties mentioned in Schedules A to C, that after his lifetime, his eldest son, Syed Ahamad Sahib, who was a Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Mariamman Handloom Factory and ors. Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad82; [1961(2)FLR6]
(1) The above appeals are from the judgment of Rajagopalan J. disposing of a batch of petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the managements of certain handloom factories in the following circumstances: On 20-7-1955, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directed that an industrial dispute which had arisen between the workers and the managements specified in the first Schedule to the order in respect of matters specified in the second Schedule thereto be referred, for adjudication, to the Industrial Tribunal having its place of sitting at Madras.The matters mentioned in the Second Schedule were (1) whether the wage cut made in November 1954 should be restored and if so, from what date and (2) Fixation of the number of festival holidays. Though the reference mentions the dispute to be between the workers and the managements in general terms, it is common ground that the controversy is between the weavers w...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. T.S. Venkataswami Naidu,
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad142
(1) This arises out of an application by the State of Madras, filed under S. 4(2)(b)of Madras Act XXX of 1956 to set aside the decision of the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Velur, in A. S. No. 79 of 1956, from the decision of the Settlement Officer, No. IV Tiruchirapalli, dated 15-11-1950. The order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal was passed on 15-9-1956. Madras Act XXX of 1956 came into force on 3-8-1957. The application by the State was filed on 6-8-1958. Section 4(1) which confers the right on the Government to file an application to set aside the decision of the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal constituted under the Abolition Act prescribes a period of one year from the date the Act, that is, Act XXX of 1956, came into force.Such an application, if preferred against the decision of a Settlement Officer, lies to the appropriate Tribunal, and in other cases to the Special Appellate Tribunal constituted under Sec. 7. S. 4(2)(b) provides that such an application shall be dealt with a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras by Collector of Tanjore Vs. T.S. Venkataswamy Naidu, M ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ391
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This arises out of an application by the State of Madras filed under Section 4(2)(b) of Madras Act (XXX of 1956) to set aside the decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, in A.S. No. 79 of 1956 from the decision of the Settlement Officer, No. IV Tiruchirapalli, dated 15th November, 1950. The order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal was passed on 15th September, 1956. Madras Act (XXX of 1956) came into force on 3rd August, 1957. The application by the State was filed on 6th August, 1958. Section 4(1) which confers the right on the Government to file an application to set aside the decision of the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal constituted under the Abolition Act prescribes a period of one year from the date the Act, that is, Act XXX of 1956, came into force. Such an application, if preferred against the decision of a Settlement Officer, lies to the appropriate Tribunal, and in other cases to the Special Appellate Tribunal constituted under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Nammalwar and ors. Vs. Appavu Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad283
(1) This appeal against the dismissal of O. S. No. 128 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli, is by the plaintiffs. The suit was laid against 32 defendants for a declaration that the properties described in the schedules to the plaint belonged to the Trust specified in the will of one Appavu Udayar who died on 31-7-1902. The further reliefs claimed in the plaint were recovery of possession of the alienated properties from the alienors and restoration of possession to the first defendant or to such other person as the court might deem fit for and on behalf of the Trust and recovery of mesne profits at Rs. 10,000 for annum.The case in the plaint is that the properties described in schedules B and C to the plaint belonged to Appavu Udayar who executed a will on 17-9-1885, bequeathing them to a Trust for feeding 10 brahmins every day in a house bearing door No. 211 North Chitrai St., Srirangam, belonging to him. The three widows of the testator who survived h...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Goundan Vs. Periaswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad253
(1). This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A. S. No. 9 of 1956, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif, Erode, in O. S. No. 586 of 1950.(2) In Servarayapalem village, Erode taluk, Coimbatore Dt. there is one Oomai Malaya Goundan. He, as his name itself shows, is a deaf mute. He is also found to be lame, and is described as an idiot. It has been found by the learned District Munsif that he was not in a position to form a rational judgment and capable of safeguarding his own interest. Therefore after an elaborate enquiry in I. A. No. 1685 of 1952, the learned District Munsif of Erode came to the conclusion that Oomai Malaya Goundan was not in a position to understand his own interest or act independently and therefore appointed a guardian-ad-litem. This was the subject matter of a revision petition to this court and I upheld the order of the District Munsif of Erode. That decision is reported ...
Tag this Judgment!