Chennai Court December 1975 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.
Ethicon Inc. of U.S. Vs. Equipments and Systems (P). Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ120
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras, registering the trade mark 'Efficon' in Part A of the Register in respect of certain stationery articles such as copying machine, carbon paper, copying ink, copying paper, etc., included in class 16. The opponents, who are the appellant before me is, Ethicon Inc. of U.S.A. who manufacture certain surgical goods such as'Sterilising Fluid and Sutures(Catgut)' under the registered trade mark 'Thicon,'. The appellants opposed the registration of the trade mark 'Efficon' applied for by the respondents before me, on several grounds. The opposition has been over Rule d by the Assistant Registrar and registration ordered. Now, hi this appeal, the opponents (appellants press their opposition only under Section 11(a) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, XLIII of 1958. It is their case that the registration of the trade mark 'Efficon' would lead to deception and confusion.2. Regarding ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.L. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR667(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The assessee was the sole proprietor of a business called M/s. Madras Pictures. In the said business he had sustained losses as follows: Rs.1954-551,08,6601957-582,86,171Total3,94,8312. These losses could not be absorbed by or set off against any other income. Therefore, it was brought forward for consideration in the assess-ment year 1958-59. We are concerned in the present reference with the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. 3. The assessee along with his wife was partner in a firm called A.L.S. Productions. In the said firm, he had a half share. The other half share belonged to his wife. For the assessment year 1958-59, the share income from the said partnership business allocated to him comes to Rs. 2,16,299 and a similar amount was allocated to his wife. That amount was liable to be taxed in his hands under the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(i). In making the assessment for 1958-59, the Income-tax Officer determined the income liable to be taxed in h...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.K.S. Rajamani Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR258(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee is a firm of partnership consisting of two partners. Among other sources, it has income from business in salt. M/s. N. K. Perianna Nadar is another iirrn of partnership. The assessee-firm and the firm of M/s. N. K. Perianna Nadar jointly negotiated for the contract each year for the supply of salt with M/s. West Coast Salt Fisheries Department at Mangalore. In the assessment year 1959-60, they were successful in getting the contract and made a profit of Rs. 14,676. The assessee included its half share of Rs. 7,338 in this profit in its total income. The Income-tax Officer treating the assessee and M/s. N. K. Perianna Nadar as an unregistered firm of partnership in respect of their contract for the supply of salt to M/s. West Coast Salt Fisheries Department at Mangalore included the sum of Rs. 7,338 in the total income. The assessee's contention that the contract taken by the assessee and the other firm was a joint venture was not accepted by the Income-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.G. Sadagopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR412(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee, a medical practitioner, was carrying on the profession of medicine in the name of Dr. K. G. Sadagopan's Clinic and Nursing Home, for several years On April 1, 1965, he took his son, who is also a registered medical practitioner as a partner in a newly constituted firm. They agreed to share the earnings in the proportion of two-thirds and one-third, and it was provided in the partnership deed that the assessee's son shall be only a working partner and will not be entitled to the assets of the clinic and the nursing home, which shall be the sole property of the assessee. The partnership firm claimed deduction for depreciation in respect of the assets of the clinic and the nursing home. When the Income-tax Officer indicated that the deduction could not be allowed on the ground that the assets did not belong to the firm, the assessee claimed a deduction of the same in his individual assessment. This was also rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground th...
Chellappa Sebastian and anr. Vs. R.C. Diocese Through Its Procurator G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ435
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. These two civil revision petitions arise out of the order of eviction passed by the Courts below. The respondents who are the landlords filed eviction proceedings against two tenants numbered as R.C.O.P. No. 77 of 1971 and 75 of 1971 under Section 10(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The main purpose for getting these buildings is to have the buildings demolished and to use the space which is opposite to the church to put up a gate and also to use the open space for congregation. Hence both the Courts below posed for decision the point as to whether the landlords requirement of the scheduled buildings in the occupation of the respective petitioners herein is for the purpose of the institution as contemplated under Section 10(3)(b) of the Act. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the requirement is for the purposes mentioned in Section 10(3)(b) of the Act and that there is no question of invoking Section 14(1)(b) of the Act ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›