Chennai Court February 1985 Judgments
The Film Federation of India Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad43
Chandurkar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of S. Natarajan J. by which the appellant's petition for being joined as a party respondent in W. P. 9745 of 1984 has been rejected by the learned Judge. The original petitioner, the 3rd respondent, has filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1084. The petitioner carries on the business of running a video library where it hires out to its members video cassettes on a fixed hire to enable the hirers to view these cassettes in the privacy of their homes through a video cassette player attached to a television unit.2. The respondents in the petition are the Union of India and the Commissioner of Police. It appears that the Commissioner of Police has been joined as a party because the offences provided for in the Copyright Act have been made non-bailable and punishable with harsh and disproportionate penalties without the owner of the copyright complaining about any infringement.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam and Etc. Vs. State of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad137
ORDER1. These writ petitions, though at the instance of different petitioners, are dealt with together, as they involve a common question. It would suffice in this connection to notice the facts in W.P. No. 10061 of 1984. The petitioner in that case had taken a lease from the pattadars of the right to peel off bark in the trees standing thereon. In the course of enjoying such rights as lessee, the petitioner had been peeling off bark from Wattle trees, Bluegum trees, etc. The Wattle bark thus peeled of by the lessee is packed and transported from the patta lands of the pattadars to the markets. In the process of moving the wattle bark and other bark so removed from the patta lands, the Forest officials stopped either the pattadars of lessees and obstructed the movement of the bark and even attempted to confiscate it, as if some provision of law had been violated claiming that Wattle bark is not tree or timber and that the Timber Transit Rules would not apply, that as the lessees of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam Represented by Its President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ67
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. These writ petitions, though at the instance of different petitioners, are dealt with together, as they involve a common question. It would suffice in this connection to notice the facts in W.P.No. 10061 of 1984. The petitioner in that case had taken a lease from the pattadars of the right to peel off bark in the trees standing thereon. In the course of enjoying such rights as lessee, the petitioner had been peeling off bark from Wattle trees, Bluegum trees, etc. The wattle bark thus peeled off by the lessee is packed and transported from the patta lands of the pattadars to the markets. In the process of moving the wattle bark and other bark so removed from the patta lands, the Forest officials stopped either the pattadars or lessees and obstructed the movement of the bark and even attempted to confiscate it, as if some provision of law had been violated. Claiming that wattle bark is not tree or timber and that the Timber Transit Rules would not apply, that as the ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Jayaraman and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ395
G. Ramanujam, J.1. Since all these writ appeals raise the same issue, they are dealt with together. These writ appeals arise out of the order of Mohan, J., in two writ petitions, W.P.Nos. 197 and 417 of 1975. The appellants are aggrieved against the common order of the learned single Judge. The circumstances under which the writ petitions came to be filed before this Court may briefly be noted. There was recruitment of Lower Division Clerks in the Office of the Director of Handloom and Textiles, Madras, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the petitioners in the said writ petitions were persons who were selected for appointment as Lower Division Clerks through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The posts of Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk as also the Superintendent in the Director of Handlooms and Textiles were governed by the rules applicable to the Madras Ministerial Services. The petitioners who were recruited as Lower Division Clerks were later ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Mohammed HussaIn and ors. Vs. F. Jagbar Nachiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1307
ORDERSingaravelu, J.1. This is a revision petition by the accused against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur in Cr. R. C. No. 26 of 1982 reversing the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C. C. No. 1021 of 1982, without giving notice to the petitioners.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The 1st respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioners herein on 4-1-1980. The case was investigated and referred as false. Thereafter the 1st respondent filed a private complaint on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. It was dismissed on 5-10-1982. Against that order, the respondents filed Cr. R. C. No. 26 of 1982, on the file of the Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur who set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and ordered an enquiry under Section 398 of the Cri. P.C. Now the case has been charge-sheeted and is pending as C. C. No. 365 of 1983, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sundaramoorthy Vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ246
ORDER1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of Mohan, J. in W.P. No. 5505 of 1981.2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant herein for the issue of a writ of certforari from this Court to quash the order of the first respondent herein dated 25.7.1979 which confirmed the order of the second respondent dated 30.1.1979 which in turn confirmed the order of the third respondent dated 2.11.1978.3. The facts leading to the filing of the said writ petition may briefly be noted. The appellant was working as a security guard in the Central Industrial Security Force since 1971 and was attached to the Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Madras Refineries Limited, Manali, during the year 1976-77. He was on duty at the railway gate post from 23.00 hours on 4.8.1976 to 0700 hours on 5.8.1976. At 0415 hours, Assistant Sub-Inspector Joseph while on checking rounds asked the appellant to produce his beat book which the latter flatly refused. In addition he abused the Assista...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›