Chennai Court April 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Advocate General of Madras Vs. Amanullakhan, Advocate, Salem 1
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad162; 1967CriLJ551
M. Anantanarayanan, Offg. C.J.(1) The respondent in these proceedings is Sri Amanullakhan, a member of the Salem Bar, and the proceedings have been initiated by the learned Advocate General under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 32 of 1952 and Art. 215 of the Constitution of India. We may here briefly state that the proceedings have been thus initiated upon a report by Sri K.P. Madhavacharya, Additional First Class Magistrate I, Salem, whose affidavit is on the record. Equally, there are two affidavits on record, on behalf of the respondent, the first being that of the respondent himself, and the second that of a member of the Salem Bar, Sri P.S. Mari Chetty, who claims to have been present on the occasion of the incident which led to the contempt proceedings.(2) A very brief conspectus of the facts, as set forth in the affidavit the Magistrate, will be sufficient. The Magistrate states that, on 28th June 1965, after he pronounced judgments in three cases convicting the concerned ac...
A.P.K. Narayanaswami Chettiar Firm, Palipalalam Salem Dt. Vs. V.K. Per ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad243
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned District Judge, Salem, directing the transfer of a suit on his file to this court, to be tried on the Original Side, purporting to act under Sections 26 and 29 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff under Section 53 of the Act for piracy of a design. The cause of action for the suit was imitation of the plaintiff's registered design, the plaintiff claiming that his design has been registered by the Government of India under the provisions of the Act. The written statement, in meeting this claim, has set up the available defences to such an action. It is pointed out, inter alia, that there was no question of piracy of the design and that the defendant was taking suitable action for revocation of the registration. However though on the pleadings it can have no relevance, Section 26 of the Act was referred to. The material issues set out herein reflect the contest betwe...
Advocate-general of Madras Vs. Sri Amanullakhan, Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ219
M. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. The respondent in these proceedings is Sri Amanullakhan, a member of the Salem Bar, and the proceedings have been initiated by the learned Advocate-General under Section 3 of the. Contempt of Courts Act, XXXII of 1952 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. We may here briefly state that the proceedings have been thus initiated upon a report by Sri K.P. Madhavacharya, Additional First Class Magistrate (I), Salem, whose affidavit is on the record. Equally there are two affidavits on record, on behalf of the respondent, the first being that of the respondent himself, and the second that of a member of the Salem Bar Sri P.S. Mari Chetty, who claims to have been present on the occasion of the incident which led to the contempt proceedings.2. A very brief conspectus of the facts, as set forth in the affidavit of the Magistrate, will be sufficient. The Magistrate states that, on 28th June, 1965, after he pronounced judgments in three cases convicting the co...
A.P.K. Narayanaswami Chettiar Firm Vs. V.K. Perumal Chettiar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ318
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned District Judge of Salem, directing the transfer of a suit on his file to this Court, to be tried on the Original Side, purporting to act under Sections 26 and 29 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff under Section 53 of the Act for piracy of a design. The cause of action for the suit was imitation of the plaintiff's registered design, the plaintiff claiming that his design has been registered by the Government of India under the provisions of the Act. The written statement, in meeting this claim, has set up the available defence to such an action. It is pointed out inter alia that there was no question of piracy of the design and that the defendant was taking suitable action for revocation of the registration. However though on the pleadings it can have no relevance, Section 26 of the Act was referred to. The material issues set out herein reflect the ...
The Indian Mutual General Insurance Society Ltd., Madras Vs. R. Raman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad56; [1966]36CompCas699(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.(1) The respondent's lorry MDN 3797 was covered by a comprehensive insurance policy issued by the appellant, the period of cover being from October 23, 1958 to October 22, 1959. On February 5, 1959, while the lorry was parked on a road in Appukodu in Nilgiris, it tumbled does the valley upto a distance of 50 yards from the parking place and was thereby damaged. This was on account of the fact that there was a sudden sinking of the loose soil at the place near the right rear wheel of the lorry and the road was on a gradient. Though the downward movement of the lorry was prevented by placing wooden logs, the accident took place due to the sinking of the loose soil. The respondent made a claim which the appellant repudiated with the result the former had the lorry repaired elsewhere at a cost of Rs. 5466-45. The appellant's repudiation was on the ground that the accident was not due to external means and that in any case it was covered by one of the exceptions contain policy...
A. Krishnaswami Raja Vs. Krishna Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1966
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ119
K. Veeraswami, J.1. We are of the view that this appeal by the plaintiffs has to be allowed on a short ground which will presently appear. The appellant filed an application under Section 57(b) of Madras Act XIX of 1951 before the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. He held that the appellant was the sole hereditary trustee of Sri Ramaswamy Perumal Temple at Karimbiyul village in Tiruthuraipundi taluk, The first respondent appealed to the Commissioner (second respondent) against that order and claimed that he was a joint hereditary trustee which was denied by the plaintiff. The Commissioner accepted his claim and allowed the appeal. This was followed by the present suit under Section 62 of the Act.2. It is common ground that the office of trusteeship in the temple is hereditary. The controversy centres round the competing claims of the appellant and the first respondent. The appellant would say that he is the sole hereditary trustee but according to the f...
The Indian Mutual General Insurance Society, Ltd. Vs. R. Raman Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ239
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The respondent's lorry M.D.N. 3797 was covered by a comprehensive insurance policy issued by the appellant, the period of cover being from 23rd October, 1958 to 22nd October, 1959. On 5th February, 1959, while the lorry was parked on a road in Appukodu in Nilgiris, it tumbled down the valley up to a distance of 50 yards from the parking place and was thereby badly damaged. This was on account of the fact that there was a sudden sinking of the loose soil, at the place near the right rear wheel of the lorry and the road was on a gradient. Though the downward movement of the lorry was prevented by placing wooden logs, the accident took place due to the sinking of the loose soil. The respondent made a claim which the appellant repudiated with the result the former had the lorry repaired elsewhere at a cost of Rs. 5,466-45. The appellant's repudiation was on the ground that the accident was not due to external means and that in any case it was covered by one of the excep...
Pilmen Agents (Private) Ltd., Madras Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad124
ORDER1. W.P. No. 621 of 1965 was filed by the petitioners, clearing agents in the Madras Port, for the issue of a writ of prohibition against the Collector of Customs, Madras, restraining him from seizing the moneys deposited by the petitioners in their account with them and adjusting such moneys towards a time barred claim for Rs. 3910-50 against Messrs. Punj and Sons (Pte) Ltd. The writ was admitted on 10-12-1965 and notice issued to the respondent. But as the amount was already adjusted by the respondent on 6-12-1965, the petitioners filed W.P. 513 of 1966 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Customs authorities seizing the moneys deposited by the petitioners in their account towards the said time barred debt of Rs. 3910-50 against Messrs Punj and Sons (Pte) Ltd.(2) The petitioners, as clearing agents, cleared a consignment of 520 bags of Asbestos Fibre Brand Silbestos belonging to Messrs. Punj and Sons (Pte) Ltd., for 'S. S. Taipisen' which ar...
Pilman Agents (Private) Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ143
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. The petitioners, as clearing agents, cleared a consignment of 520 bags of Asbestos Fibre Brand Silbestos belonging to Messrs. Punj & Sons (Private), Limited from ''S.S. Isipingo', which arrived at Madras Harbour on 25th June, 1963. The Customs authorities allowed this consignment duty free on 29th July, 1963 when the clearance was completed. On 25th April, 1964, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Department, realised that duty of Rs. 3,910-50 ought to have been levied on the goods cleared by the petitioners on 20th July, 1963. Therefore, the Collector addressed a letter to Messrs. Punj & Sons. In his letter, the Collector mentioned that a demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 has become time-barred, but payment of the amount if made voluntarily would be accepted. The petitioners addressed Messrs. Punj & Sons on 6th May, 1964 referring to the letter of the 25th April, 1964 from the Assistant Collector of Customs and requested Messrs. Pu...
R. Narayanaswami Vs. T.K. Srinivasan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ315
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. These two Revision Petitions have been filed by one R. Narayanaswami under the following circumstances. Towards the end of March, 1965, one T.K. Srirangan, the contesting respondent in these petitions, was declared elected as a member of the Kondayampalayam Panchayat Board. The petitioner was also one of the persons declared elected as a member. The petitioner did not file any objection then that the first respondent Srirangan was disqualified for election as a member. On 15th April, 1965 he filed a petition O.P. No. 29 of 1965 to the prescribed judicial authority (District Munsif, Coimbatore) under Section 28 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 (XXXV of 1958) alleging that the first respondent was disqualified for election on the ground that he was an undischarged insolvent. The facts on that point are really not in dispute. The first respondent had filed a petition himself (ExhibitA-1) I.P. No. 15 of 1962 under Sections 10 and 13 of the Provincial Insolven...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »