Chennai Court September 1963 Judgments
K.S.M. Somasundaram Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ255
1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 726-14-0 by the petitioner against the Union of India in respect of negligent delivery of goods to a person other than the owner by the Railway Administration. On 12th June, 1956, the petitioner consigned by railway parcel 72 handloom sarees valued at the amount aforesaid at Ambathurai Railway Station to be delivered to 'self' at Victoria Terminus, Bombay. A railway receipt was given to him. It was endorsed by the, petitioner in favour of Kalamandir Swadeshi Market, Bombay; but it did nor reach the addressee. It appears that the railway receipt was received by some person not entitled to the same, but who, thereafter, presented it at the Victoria Terminus Railway Station and obtained delivery of goods. There are no means of knowing to whom the delivery was made. The endorsement on the back of the receipt which has now been produced by the respondent shows as if a certain Chaganlal Kasturchand & Co., ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Parthasarathy Chetty Vs. K. Shyamalamba by Agent, P. Lakshminarayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ250
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises an important question relating to the right of a sub-tenant of land who had put up a superstructure thereon, to purchase the interest of his lessor, namely, the head tenant of the original owner under the provisions of Section 9 the Madras City Tenants Protection Act which will be referred to hereafter as the Act. The Courts below have expressed divergent views on that question. The land which forms the subject-matter of these proceedings forms part of larger area, which belongs to one Thanikesam Pillai. He granted a lease in the year 1937 of the entire area to one Mahommad Ismail for a period of 99 years with an option in the tenant to obtain renewal of the same for a like period. The respondent is a transferee from the tenant. She parcelled out the land and granted sub-leases of portions thereof to the several persons, one of them being the petitioner. He after having taken the sub-lease from the former, put up a buildin...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. Babu Sahib Alias Sheik Mytheen Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ110
K. Veeraswami, J.1. In the first of these appeals (S.A. No. 1153 of 1960), the 1st defendant is the appellant and in the other (S.A. No. 1171 of 1961) the plaintiffs, who brought the suit for evicting the 1st defendant from the land in question. It is common ground that the land originally belonged to Hajee Peer Batch a Sahib. The plaintiffs claim to be settlees under a settlement executed by him on 12th October, 1949. The lease in favour of the 1st defendant was executed by the original owner of the land on 22nd September, 1947 for a term of ten years at the rent stipulated in the document. The plaintiffs sought to evict the 1st defendant after the period of ten years. On behalf of the 1st defendant, various defences were taken which were, I think, rightly repelled by the Courts below. The 1st defendant questioned the status of the plaintiffs to bring the suit on the ground that under the settlement of the original owner of the land, the plaintiffs had only limited rights. The 1st def...
Tag this Judgment!N. Arumugam Pillai Vs. K.S. Syed Abbas and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad204
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 109 (1) of the made Marks Act, 1958 against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras, registering a trade mark in respect of chewing tobacco manufactured by the respondent. The appellant has been doing business in the sale of chewing tobacco since 1935. He applied in 1942 for registration of a trade mark under the name of 'Thangabaspam Tobacco'. The design consists of that name and below it was a circle; inset within it is a photograph of the appellant. At the top portion of the circle, the words 'Thanga Baspam Tobacco' are printed in English. Then follows the address of the appellant. This trade was registered as No. 893y, and we are told that, after the expiry of the period of registration, it has been further renewed. subsequently, the appellant appears to have registered the words 'Thanga Baspam' alone as his mark for the sale of his tobacco. The registration number for this is 139406.While so, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!N. Arumugam Pillai Vs. K.S. Syed Abbas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ151
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 109(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1958 against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks Madras, registering a trade-mark in respect of chewing tobacco manufactured by the respondent. The appellant has been doing business in the sale of chewing tobacco since 1935. He applied in 1942 for registration of a trade-mark under the name of ' Thanga Baspam Tobacco '. The design consists of that name and below it was circle ; inset within it is a photograph of the appellant. At the top portion of the circle, the words ' Thanga Baspam Tobacco ' are printed in English. Then follows the address of the appellant. This trade-mark was registered as No. 8939, and we are told that, after the expiry of the period of registration, it has been further renewed. Subsequently, the appellant appears to have registered the words ' Thanga Baspam ' alone as his mark for the sale of his tobacco. The registration number for this is 139406. While so...
Tag this Judgment!C. Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. Baby Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad448
Jagadisan, J.1. This appeal is by the first defendant in the; suit O. S. No. 97 of 1959, Sub Court, Vellore, objecting to the preliminary decree passed against him on foot of a mortgage admittedly executed by him. The objection relates only to the) interest payable and is based upon the fact that he is an agriculturist entitled to relief under Madras Act IV of 1938.2. The two defendants in the suit (the appellant and the second defendant) executed two simple mortgages for Rs. 7900 and Rs. 9000 on 19-2-1953 and 7-4-1953, respectively. On the date of the first mortgage a portion of the hypotheca was leased to the plaintiff mortgagee. The mortgage bonds stipulated that interest should be paid at 12 per cent per annum. There are covenants in the two mortgages authorising the mortgagee to deduct the interest payable as per the terms of the mortgage from the lease amount due from the mortgagee to the mortgagors. These covenants have been fully set out in the judgment of the learned Principal...
Tag this Judgment!Perianna Gounder Vs. Jayarao Nainar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ108
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal is from an order of the District Judge of South Arcot at Cuddalore apportioning compensation for land acquired which was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The deposit was made because he thought that there was a dispute as to its apportionment but he made no reference under Section 30 of the Act. The District Judge of his own accord initiated proceedings and deeided that the appellant and the respondent were entitled to the compensation amount deposited in equal moieties on the view that the two items of property acquired were owned by the appellant and the respondent's predecessor-in-title in common.2. Item I which is a site of an extent of 55 cents with a tiled house thereon was purchased by the appellant on 26th April, 1934 in his own name. The other item is a land 31 cents in extent. The District Judge considered that the second item was ancestral property set apart for the maintenance of the a...
Tag this Judgment!L.M. Chitale and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad131; (1963)IILLJ747Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution pray for the issue of writs of certiorari to call for the records of the Commissioner of Labour and to quash his order dated 27th October 1960, and the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, dated the 26th April 1961 respectively. The fasts are briefly as below.2. The petitioner in W. P. No. 602 of 1961 is a partner of a registered firm of Chartered Architects. The firm of the petitioner terminated the services of one T. M. Lingam, an employee, after issuing due notice to him. Though the termination of his service was not objected to by that employee, he subsequently preferred an appeal under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for payment of gratuity or other amounts, or, in the alternative, for reinstatement. The petitioner objected to the proceedings contending that as the firm was carrying on a profession of consulting architec...
Tag this Judgment!Sona Ana Pana Baulraj and anr. Vs. S.P. Vadiveu Nadar and Sons and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad33
(1) Petition under Ss. 46 and 72 of the Trade Marks Act, V. of 1940 for rectification of the register of Trade Marks by expunging the trade mark No. 133588 containing the trade name "Manthithoppu"(1a) The first respondent, which is a firm of partners comprising of the second respondent and his sons, was originally doing business at Usilampatti but subsequently shifted its business to Madurai. The firm was carrying on business in the preparation and sale of a medicinal oil described as 'Manthithoppu Manikatti Swamigal Sarvaroga Sanjivi thailam'. The second respondent learnt the process of preparing the medicinal oil from Manikatti Swamigal of Inam Manthithoppu and got an exclusive right to manufacturer and sell the said Thailam within the district of Madurai by virtue of the agreement Ex. P. 1 dated 27-1-1933 entered into with said Swamigal. He got the label "Sarva Roga Sanjeevi thailam' marked as "A" in Ex P. 2 registered under the document at Calcutta on 10-9-1934. He issued a notice...
Tag this Judgment!Challamuthu Padayachi and ors. Vs. Rajavel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad263; 1964CriLJ674
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur, issuing summons to witnesses to give evidence in Section 145, Crl. P. C. proceedings. The petitioners are B party in Section 145 proceedings in the lower Court. The A party filed an application for issue of summons to karnam and the Sub-Inspector of Police to give evidence and it was ordered by the trial Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the lower Court is not entitled to examine persons as witnesses, who have not filed affidavits Under Section 145(4), Crl. P. C.2. Section 145, Crl. P. C. was amended by amendment Act XXVI of 1955: Under Section 145, as it stood before the amendment, it was found that the enquiry took considerable time. In order to obviate the delay, an amendment was introduced to Section 145. According to the old section whenever the case was a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning a land, the Magistrate wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »