Chennai Court March 1966 Judgments
Sivagangai Ammal Vs. Jagadambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad126
(1)This appeal arises out of execution proceedings, wherein the appellant prayed the court that her property which was purchased free of charge for the maintenance decree should not be brought to sale by the decreeholder in O. S. 334 of 1947 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore. The courts below have held that though the appellant purchased the property on the previous occasion in the execution of the maintenance decree, still the property is not free from the charge, and dismissed her application. It is against the orders of the courts below, she has filed the present appeal.(2) In this appeal the same question arises for consideration viz, whether the property is free from charge.(3) It is not disputed that the property in dispute has been subject to a charge under a maintenance decree obtained by the respondent against one Rajagopal Pandithan and others in O. S. 334 of 1947.(4) The appellant purchased this property from Rajagopal Pandithan, and his wife Angammal for Rs. 200...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P.), Ltd. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ238
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These petitions are filed praying for the refund of Court-fee paid by the petitioner in the Writ Petitions filed before this Court. These petitions were filed for the issue of Writs in the nature of mandamus and certiorari for quashing certain sales tax assessments made against it. Before these petitions were numbered, they were returned for rectifying certain defects. Before these defects were rectified, an appeal by the petitioner to the Supreme Court regarding the same matter was allowed. Therefore, the petitioner felt that it was not necessary to prosecute these Writ Petitions. In the circumstances the petitioner has prayed for refund of the Court-fee paid by it in these Writ Petitions.2. The provision relating to refund of the Court-fee is Section 70 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Under the Section, when the fee is paid by mistake or inadvertance, it shall be ordered to be refunded. The fee was certainly not paid by any mistake or ...
Tag this Judgment!The Pilot Pen Co. (India) Private Ltd., Madras Vs. the Gujarat Industr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad215
1. These set of suits are by the Pilot Pen Co. (India) Private Ltd., against the several defendants for a permanent injunction restraining them from using the type of clip of fountain pens imitating the plaintiff's design registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act on 28-9-1959 and for accounts of the profits they have made by the sale of their pens with infringing type of clips. The original petitions by the defendants in each of these suits is for the cancellation of the registration by a direction to the Controlled General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Calcutta to remove the entry of the said registration from the register.(2) The suits and petitions were tried together and since the points arising in the suits and petitions are common, I propose to dispose them of by a common judgment.(3) The plaintiff, Pilot Pen Co., claims to have absolute copy right in a new and original design in respect of fountain pen clips, having registered their design under No. 101410 dated...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapchand and ors. Vs. Lakshman Prasad Gupta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad98
Ramamurthi, J.(1) This case illustrates the proverbial thorny path of execution which the decreeholder has to pursue before he is able to realise the decree. The decree in this case was passed by the Sub Court of Arrah in July 1938, and from 1941 onwards the Judgment debtors have been successfully obstructing the realisation of the decree. It is interesting to mention that in this court in the objection filed in the execution application(vide counter affidavit of Baijnath Prasad) it is stated the properties sought to be attached within the jurisdiction of this court are worth more than a lakh of rupees, and the only objection raised is a plea of limitation. A brief reference to the prior history of the proceedings taken in execution of this decree is necessary for a proper appreciation of the plea of limitation raised.(2) On 20-7-1938, a money decree was passed by the Sub Court, Arrah, for a sum of Rs. 18,540. This decree was transferred to the Civil Judge, Allahabad for execution and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Ali Vs. Sheik Mohamed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ346
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam and turns on whether there is any limitation and, if so, what is it for execution by that Court of a foreign judgment of a superior Court in a reciprocating territory. The District Judge held that Article 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was inapplicable but Article 182 was. On the view that the starting point of limitation would be the date of the order of the appellate Court in such territory, he directed execution to proceed. He also repelled a contention that execution was barred under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure but this question is no longer reiterated. For the appellant-judgment-debtor reliance was placed on Uthamarama v. Abdul Kassim and Company (1963) 2 M.L.J. 412 and it was urged that on theprinciple of this authority, the execution petition should be held to be barred as the judgment of the foreign Court had been obtai...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal Achi Vs. V.R.V.S. Singaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ425
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This, is an appeal preferred, by the wife against an order of the learned District Judge granting divorce on the ground that she was living in adultery, thereby reversing the order of the learned Subordinate Judge who dismissed the application of the husband under Sections 10(1)(a) and (f) and 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.2. The appellant and the respondent were married in the year 1947. The respondent used to go away to Colombo where he was earning his livelihood. He used to visit his wife and children in India occasionally. He has alleged that during his absence in Ceylon his wife fell into immoral Ways. He has alleged that he received a letter from his mother that the appellant was living in adultery with one Ramiah and one Krishnan. When he came to India in 1958, he actually saw the appellant--so he alleges--leaning against Ramiah in the kitchen of his house and that on seeing him Ramiah ran away. The respondent has further alleged that one Sethura...
Tag this Judgment!Janab Haji Abdul Hamid Rowther and anr. Vs. Samsunnissa Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ195
M. Natesan, J.1. The defendants who have failed in both the Courts below are the appellants and the only question is whether the suit is barred by limitation, the plaintiff having otherwise a good case on the merits. As will be seen presently, the plaintiff unfortunately will have to fail under the inexorable law of limitation. Learned Counsel for the respondent urged the merits of his client's case; but the Courts have no discretion in the matter of applying the law of limitation and when it does fall on the facts of the case it has to be applied.2. The properties in the suit, two items, belonged to the plaintiff's mother Dawood Bivi, and on her death in 1947 the plaintiff got 3/4th share in the properties, the plaintiff's father getting the remaining 1/4th share. The plaintiff's mother had purchased the two items on 15th February, 1932, under Exhibit B-5 for a sum of Rs. 1,000. At the time of purchase the second item of the suit properties was subject to an othi for Rs. 275 and this ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Mohamed MohIn Vs. Madras State Wakf Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad243
(1) These second appeals have been filed by the plaintiff in two suits: O.S. No. 309 of 1960 and O.S. No. 716 of 1960, which were tried together by the learned District Munsif, Vellore. The suit O. S. No. 716 of 1960 concerns a wakf deed dated 7-10-1940, Ex. A-32, executed by one Rukhia Bi Sahiba, and the suit, O. S. No. 309 of 1960, concerns another wakf deed, Ex. A-22, dated 4-8-1941, executed by her. The Wakf Board constituted under the Wakf Act, 29 of 1954, notified them as wakfs under the Act. The plaintiff brought the suits for declaration that the properties mentioned in the deeds are not wakf properties and not liable to be notified under the Act. His contention was that Rukhia Bi did not really intend these documents to come into force and that they were not also valid as wakfs. The learned District Munsif held against him on both these points and dismissed the suits. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the learned. Subordinate Judge also failed. Hence, this further appea...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarama Reddiar Vs. Saraswathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad85
(1) This letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by one Subbarama Reddiar, the respondent before Venkatadri, J. in C.M.S.A. 9 of 1964, form the judgment and decree of the learned Judge. We may very briefly state that the proceeding before the learned Judge was of the nature of a second appeal, in respect of a petition under Ss. 10(f) and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955) for a decree for judicial separation originally before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chingleput.(2) The learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Chingleput went into the fact of the evidence before him, elaborately on the merits, and held that the act of adultery alleged by the husband(appellant) against his wife Saraswathi Ammal(respondent), in the occasion in question, was legally proved, and hence that the husband was entitled to a decree for judicial separation; under Section 10(f) of the Hindu Marriage Act. the matter went up on appeal to the learned District Judge, Chingleput(C.M.A. 64 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Ondiputhur Weavers' Co-operative Production and Sales Socie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ887Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus calling for the records in G.O.R. No. 1030, dated 21 April 1964, from the State of Madras and directing the Government to dispose of the matter according to law. On Murugesan who is a member of the petitioner-onion tm employed as the goods section clerk under the Ondiputhur Weavers' Co-operative Production and Sales Society, Ltd., Coimbatore. On 14 July 1955, the society Ponnuswami for shortage of 27 sarees in a parcel to be sent which contained 200 sarees. They filed an appeal under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, and the order of dismissal was set aside on 31 December 1955. These two workers had been taken back into service as per the compromise arrived at between the parties. The management filed an arbitration case before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore, and the Deputy Registrar passed a decree against Murugesan for a sum of Rs. 286-11-0. dismissed the said Murugesan a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »