Chennai Court April 1977 Judgments
S.S. Khader Mohammed Rowther and Co. Vs. G.S. Sundaram and Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad147; (1978)1MLJ79
ORDERBalasubrahmanyan, J.1. This revision is under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is brought by the tenant of a non-residential, build-ing in Madras City, What he is up against is an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on a petition filed by the landlord for personal occupation of the premises. The Rent Controller passed the order ex parte. And it was confirmed in appeal.2. The validity of the ex parte eviction order is questioned in this revision, Mr. Govind Swaminathan appears for the tenant. He argues that the order is a nullity.3. The nullity argument, as elaborated by the learned counsel, was not so much on the ex parte nature of the order as on the terms of the order itself. Mr. Govind Swaminathan did not, for instance, say that under the Act all ex parte orders must be held to be nullities. Nor did he claim that this particular proceeding setting his client ex parte was not warranted by the circumstances. This latter gro...
Tag this Judgment!Nestle's Products (India) Ltd. Vs. P. Thankaraja and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad336; (1978)1MLJ417
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. In this appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, M/s. Nestle's Products (India) Limited object to the grant of registration to the trade mark 'INSTEA' in favour of M/s. Alvitone Laboratories. Alvitone applied for registration of this trade mark under item No. 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade Mark Rules 1959 which, inter alia, included 'tea'. The application was made on the footing that the trade mark was 'proposed to be used' by Alvitone. The Assistant Registrar accepted Alvitone's application and granted registration to 'INSTEA' (word per se) under Part A of the Register.2. Nestles filed an opposition before the Assistant Registrar objecting to the grant of registration to Alvitone's trade mark. Nestles contended that 'INSTEA' was not an invented word. According to them, it was easily recognizable as a portmanteau word to denote 'instant tea', an expression descriptive of the character of the commodity in ordinary trade parlanc...
Tag this Judgment!V. Thiagarajan Vs. Mohammed Umar Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad223
ORDERMohan, J.1. On 14-11-1969, the respondent in the revision petition executed a promissory note in favour of the revision petitioner herein for a sum of Rs. 10,000. On the foot of the promissory note, O. S. No. 7311 of 1970 came to be filed under Order 37 C.P.C. on 23-12-1970. The respondents herein filed I. A. 9065 of 1971 seeking leave to defend. It was his case that no consideration had passed. The court by an order dated 11-2-1972 granted conditional leave directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rupees 6,000 on or before 29-2-1972 failing which the said petition would stand dismissed and the suit was directed to becalled on 1-3-1972. The deposit was not made in accordance with this order, therefore the suit was taken up on 1-3-1972. At that time, the counsel for the respondent was stated to be present and it was decreed. In the meanwhile what had happened is against the grant of conditional leave in I. A. 9065 of 1971, the matter was taken up to this court in C. R. p. 509 o...
Tag this Judgment!S.P.S. Selvaraj and ors. Vs. Edward Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ441
S. Mohan, J.1. The plaintiffs have preferred the appeal against the dismissal of their suit in O.S. No. 2 of 1975 on the file of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli.2. The suit was one for permanent injunction restraining' the defendants, their agents and servants from manufacturing and selling tooth powder with the trade mark label marked 'I' or any other colourable imitation of the plaintiffs' trade mark marked 'A' and produced along with the plaint and for rendition of accounts of the profits earned by the defendants by the use of the offending trade mark label from August, 1974 and to make an inquiry into the quantum of damages as ordered by this Court on 17th February, 1976 and to surrender all unused offending trade mark labels and also the blocks, and dyes used by them in printing the labels marked.3. The plaintiffs are carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of tooth powder among other articles under the name and style of S.P.S. and Co., and Vel Chemicals Works at ...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Munirathinam Naidu Vs. Meena Financiers, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad46
1. This is an appeal by the respondent in I. P. No. 79 of 1972, who was adjudicated as an insolvent, on a petition filed by one of his creditors. The appellant was adjudicated as insolvent, because it was found that his property had been attached and had remained under attachment for more than 21 days in execution of a decree of this Court for the payment of the money. Several other grounds were urged by the creditor for adjudicating him as an insolvent and were found in his favour, and, therefore, they do not survive for consideration now. The ground on which the appellant was adjudicated as insolvent is also not impugned in this appeal. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was confined to the question of jurisdiction. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not ordinarily resided or had a dwelling house or carried on business either in person or through an agent within one year before the date of presentation of the insolvency ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan and ors. Vs. V.S. Jamal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1847
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday, the 16th day of March, Wednesday the 30th day of March, Friday, the 1st day of April 1977 upon perusing the petition and the order of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. V. Sankaran, for Messrs N. T. Vanamamalai G. Krishnan and M. Dhanasekaran, Advocates for the petitioners and of Mr. I. Subramaniam Advocate for the first respondent and of Mr. A. Packiaraj, for the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State, and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order:Some members of the B Party, viz., Nos. 1 to 12, 14, 16 to 22 and 24 to 51, in M. C. No. 45 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli, have preferred this revision to assail an order passed under Section 146 (1-B) Cr. P.C. in favour of the A party (the first respondent herein) in respect of certain lands situate at Velar-kulam vil...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ramachandran Vs. the President, the Tudaiyalur Co-operative Agricul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ472
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner is the President of Vattamalaipalayam Co-operative Milk Supply Society. He is also a Member of the Tudaiyalur Co-operative Agricultural Services Ltd., and also a member of the Committee of its management. In his capacity as the President of Vattamalaipalayam Co-operative Milk Supply Society, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till, the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500 in C.C. No. 335 of 1973 for the sale of adulterated milk by a salesman of the Society. Taking note of the conviction of the petitioner in the said case, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (third respondent herein) has informed the first respondent, the President of the Society, that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the society as a result of the said conviction which involves a moral turpitude by a letter dated 28th April, 1975. In pursuance of the above direction, the Society sent the impugned communication dated 9th May, 197...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Munirathinam Naidu Vs. Meena Financiers, by Partner S.R.M.S. Nara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ399
S. Suryamurthy, J.1. This is an appeal by the respondent in I.P. No. 79 of 1972, who was adjudicated as an insolvent, on a petition filed by one of his creditors. The appellant was adjudicated as insolvent, because it was found that his property had been attached and had remained under attachment for more than 21 days in execution of a decree of this Court for the payment of the money. Several other grounds were urged by the creditor for adjudicating him as an insolvent and were found in his favour, and therefore, they do not survive for consideration now. The ground on which the appellant was adjudicated as insolvent is also not impugned in this appeal. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant was confined to the question of jurisdiction. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant had not ordinarily resided or had a dwelling house or carried on business either in person or through an agent within one year before the date of presentation of...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. K.P.V. Shaik Mohammed Rowt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad224
Mohan, J.1. The first defendant (the State Trading Corporation of India, represented by Regional Manager of its Madras branch) is the appellant before me.2. The appeal arises out of O. S. No. 6065 of 1968 on the file of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The first respondent filed the suit for a mandatory injunction against the defendants for directing the appellant to pay the second defendant (Collector of Customs, Madras) the sum of Rupees 9854.91, being the penalty in respect of the alleged shortage of imported sulphur at Madras on 25-1-1966 or, in the alternative, for reimbursement in the event of the plaintiff being obliged to pay the amount.3. The first defendant chartered a vessel for the import of sulphur in bulk from Vancover to Calcutta and Madras and apppinted the plaintiff as its agent to clear' the goods under Ex. A-26. The vessel arrived at Madras Port on 25-1-1966 and the cargo was discharged. The plaintiff represented the first defendant in the observ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Thiagaraja Pillai Vs. the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ245
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner claims to have taken 8.87 acres in R.S. No. 70 in Kanganchari Vattam, Nannilam Taluk belonging to the (Railways through the respondent and to have raised paddy crops therein ever since 1945. He also claims to have cultivated the lands by contributing his own physical labour. In fasli 1382 the respondent, on behalf of the Railways held a public auction of the leasehold right in the lands. The petitioner along with others bid at the auction. Since the petitioner was not the successful bidder, he was directed to deliver possession to the successful bidder for that fasli. At that stage the petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent from interfering with his possession of the said lands in pursuance of his notice dated 1st February, 1973 directing him to deliver possession to the successful bidder.2. The petitioner's case is that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the lands ever since 1945 and that there...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »