Chennai Court December 1963 Judgments
The Western India Match Company, Limited Vs. the Manohara Match Works, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ355
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Petition under Sections 56, 107 and 108 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (XLIII of 1958) for rectification of the Register of Trade Marks by cancelling the registration of the trade mark 'Matulaies' adopted by respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners are reputed manufacturers of safety matches, and one of their trade marks ' Three mangoes' which they are using ever since 1934, on the packets and lables of the match boxes sold extensively in different Districts of Andhra Pradesh and more particularly in the Districts of Guntur, Krishna, Khammameth and Warangal. The first respondent is a proprietary concern of 2nd respondent, P. Muthiah Nadar, and the third respondent, the joint owner of the trade mark ' Matulaies '. The complaint of the petitioners is that respondents 1 to 3, in or about 1959, conceived the idea of adopting the mark of 'Matulaies', similar to that of the registered trademark of 'Three mangoes' of the petitioners maliciously and with the intent of cau...
Tag this Judgment!Cork Industries and ors. Vs. A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad87
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) This is an appeal from the judgement of Srinivasan, J. who confirmed the order of the Master granting the respondent leave to sue in forma pauperis. A preliminary question as to the maintainability of the appeal under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent has got to be considered before we can take up the merits of the appeal. In Ananthanarayana v. Rarichan : AIR1936Mad387 it was held that an order of a single Judge admitting a pauper appeal after excusing the delay in the presentation was not a judgement as that enabled the appeal to go on. In Baba Sah v. Purushotham Sah, 47 M LJ 932: AIR 1925 Mad 167, a Bench of this court held that an appeal would lie against the order of a single Judge on the Original Side granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis. That judgement, in our opinion, is inconsistent with the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Asrumati Debi v. Rupendradeb Raikot, : [1953]4SCR1159 , where two tests have been laid by their Lordsh...
Tag this Judgment!S.A.R.M. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Minor Viswanathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad349
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal is from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, decreeing in part a claim made by the appellant on the foot of a simple mortgage executed by the father of the respondents herein in favour of the appellant. The mortgage document is dated 3-1-1955 and it purports to be executed by the father of the respondents for himself and also in his capacity as the guardian of the latter. The amount secured under the document was a sum of Rs. 35,000, made up of(l) Rs. 29,522-1-0, an amount said to be due from the father of the respondents to the appellant in regard to the former's dealings with the latter from 27-1-1950 to 4-1-1954 (2) Rs, 5, 231-12-0, the balance due under a deposit letter executed by the mother of the respondents' father in favour of the appellant and (3) Rs. 246, 3-0 paid in cash. It is now proved by evidence that the liability for the first item of consideration, namely Rs. 29,522-1-0 was in respect of the indebtedness of a co...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Periasami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ780
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for revising the order of the District Magistrate, Madurai, confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 182 I. P. C. and sentence of fine of Rs. 50 passed on him.2. The petitioner sent through post a com-plaint against one Ramakrishnan P. W. 1, regarding the theft of his cycle to the Additional Sub-Inspector, Tirupparankundram. The complaint Ex. P. 5 was received on 17-7-1961, by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tbimparankund-ram. He registered the case and transferred it to the Detective Sub-Inspector, P. W. 11, for investigation. P. W. 11 took up investigation and on enquiry found that the case was false and served a referred charge-sheet notice on the petitioner on 1st September 1961. He obtained a report from P. W. 1 Ramakrishnan against whom the petitioner gave the complaint of theft and registered a case under Section 211 I. P. C. against the petitioner. He applied to the Sub-Magistrate praying for permission to investigate-int...
Tag this Judgment!East Asiatic Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Employees' S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad360; [1964(9)FLR96]
Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in E. S. I. No. 2 of 1957. The appellant herein, the East Asiatic Co. (India) Private Ltd., Madras, filed a petition under Section 73-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act for a declaration that they were not liable to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation for the employer's special contribution in respect of their tannery at Vaniyambadi. They prayed that the sum of Rs. 2726 paid by them by way of employer's contribution for the quarter ended 31st March 1.953 to 30th June 1955 be ordered to be refunded to them by the respondent, that the order of the Regional Director calling upon the appellant herein to pay employer's special contribution for the quarter ended 30th September 1955 upto the date of filing the petition before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation should, be set aside and that the order of the Regional Director (respondent her...
Tag this Judgment!Mottayyan Alias Palaniyandi Goundan Vs. K.G. Ramaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad493
Veeraswami, J.1. The sole question in this second appeal is, whether the first defendant, who is the appellant, is entitled to let into Sundaresan Kannar surplus water through a siphon from the lands of his situate to the west of Raja Vaikkal. Both, the courts below found that he was not so entitled and concurred in granting a declaration that Sundaresan Kannar was not a Poromboke but owned in common by the Ayacutdars on either side of that Kannar, and also a preventive injunction.Sri Mohan Kumaramangalam for the appellant contends that the finding of the lower apuellate Court as if some of the sate deeds and mortgage deeds referred to by it purported to convey or deal with the Kannar as part of the conveyance or mortgage is not correct. I think, as the contention goes, it is correct. The boundaries in none of the sale deeds or mortgage deeds would take in the Kannar as part of what was dealt with under the relevant deeds. They have only described the Kannar as one of the boundaries. B...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Murray and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad301
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) These appeals are filed by the Sate of Madras, under Cl. 15 Letters Patent, from the judgment of Srinivasan J., directing the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Government to permit the plying of handcarts in that part of the Mount Road lying between the Round Tana and Gemini Roundabout, subject to such regulations as the Commission of Police might impose as to the weight and capacity of the handcarts and relative to their movement within certain hours of the day. The judgment was restricted in its operation to the passage over the road to the handcarts belonging to the respondents, to these appeals, and which were employed by them in connection with the business; but even in regard to them, it was declared that it will be open to the Commissioner, by providing passes or otherwise, to restrict the passage of these handcarts.(2) On 20-3-1962, the Commissioner of Police Madras, issued a notification by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Motor Vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!Sembala Varadiah Chetty and anr. Vs. P. Parthasarathy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ390
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. This revision case raises the question as to how far the decision of a Caste Panchayat can be held valid when the Panchayat seeks to impose social segregation or ostracism as a mode of punishment.2. The case arises out of a certain decision taken by Padmasaliya sub-sect of the Chettiar caste against P.W. 1, Parthasarathi Chetti, who was the headman of the community from 1952 to 1962. In C.C. No. 9240 of 1963, he complained that the aforesaid decision came within the mischief of Section 499 I.P.C. and amounted to defamation. The learned Fourth Presidency Magistrate upheld this contention, convicted the petitioner under Section 500 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. There was yet another person Jagannatha Chettiar arrayed as third accused in the complaint. He was acquitted by the learned Magistrate under Section 258(1) Cri P.C.3. About 150 families belonging to the aforesaid Padmasa...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnad Electricity Workers Federation and anr. Vs. Madras State Elec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad111
(1) The Tamilnad Electricity Workers Federation represented by its General Secretary, and the Madras Electricity Workers Union, also represented by its General Secretary have instituted this appeal from the judgement of Veeraswami J. in W. P. No. 45 of 1962. In that proceeding, those appellants sought the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Madras State Electricity Board respondent to forbear from implementing its proceedings No. 2704 dated 28-12-1961, in so far as those proceedings altered the service conditions of the workmen of the Board relating to dearness allowance, casual leave, and National and Festival Holidays. The learned Judge, Veeraswami J. declined to issue the writ, upon grounds set forth by him in his judgment under appeal.(2) Before proceeding to the central issue that arises for our determination, within the compass of the present appeal, we shall first set forth, in a condensed form the events that led to the impugned proceedings of the Madras Sate Electricity Board,...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramania Iyer Vs. Subbiah thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad417
(1) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the order of remand of the learned District Judge, East Tanjore, directing the trial court, the Sub Court, Mayuram, to try afresh and dispose of the suit, O. S. 26 of 1958, after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce additional evidence in the light of the observations made by him in his order. This order of remand is clearly illegal and opposed to the provisions of Or. XLI Rule 23 C.P.C.(2) The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The plaintiff (appellant herein) granted a lease to the first defendant evidenced by a registered lease deed, Ex. A. 1, dated 29-6-1954, comprising nanja lands of an extent of 32 acres 90 cents for a period of five years. The first defendant is the lessee, the second defendant being his surety for the due performance of the obligations of the lessee. For two years the lessee appears to have paid the rent due to the plaintiff but trouble arose during the subsequent years.(3) On 2-2-1957, the less...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »