Chennai Court September 1985 Judgments
Pope the King Match Factory, a Registered Firm Having Its Factory and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1985
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ391
ORDERSengottuvelan, J.1. This appeal is against the Orders of the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, passed in I.A. No. 725 of 1986 in O.S. No. 101 of 1986, dismissing the said application filed by the petitioner for the relief of interim injunction restraining the respondents from using a trade mark for the product of matches, which is similar to the registered trade mark of the petitioner.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The petitioner is a registered proprietor of the trade mark consisting of a rose for his product of safety matches. The registration certificate is marked as Ex. A1. The respondent began marketing a product of safety matches with a cartonn containing rose with the title 'White rose'. No doubt, the respondent's carton is in deep blue and deep green colours whereas the petitioner's carton is in red and yellow colours. The lower Court, while dealing with the interim injunction application, compared both the cartons side by side and the...
Tag this Judgment!A.Venkatachalapathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad309
ORDER1. The challenge is of a notification under S. 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, hereinafter referred to as the' Act'. The power of dispensing with the provisions of S. 5A of the Act has been invoked under S. 17(4) of the Act. I heard Mr. T. Chengalvarayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel made one submission only and that is there is no warrant at all to dispense with the provisions of S. 5A of the Act, since the purpose is only for construction of office and residential complex (and also to prevent haphazard development) for the newly formed Kamarajar district. The question as to whether urgency exists or not is a matter solely for the determination of the Government and it is not a matter of judicial review. This Court will not 'De entitled to go into the question as 1 to whether the decision was taken on proper material and in an objective manner. The district is admittedly a newly formed one. If' urgency was felt to construct offices and...
Tag this Judgment!Ameena Begum Vs. Kalbali Baig Mosque by Its Muthawalli Hajee Khuthubud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ342
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit for ejectment, viz. O.S. No. 251 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Ranipet, filed by the respondent herein. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 1160 of 1975 in the said suit under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act praying for direction to the respondent herein to sell the petition-mentioned premises for a price to be fixed by the Court. According to the petitioner, she is the tenant of the vacant site belonging to the respondent herein, that she and her sons had put up a construction in the said site worth' Rs. 15,000 that they are residing there and doing business, and that the Act was extended to the town wherein the petition mentioned property is situate only in 1973. The said claim was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the suit property is a Kabarssthan (burial ground) and hence it is exempted from the provisions of the Act and as such, the petition is liable to be dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Pauline Frederick Vs. V.L. Narayanan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ351
ORDERS.A. Kadar, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of the same matter and the parties are the same. CRP.No. 4800 of 1984 arises out of the order of the 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in E.A. No. 1282 of 1984 in E.P. No. 342 of 1983 and the petitioner in the execution application is the revision petitioner. C.R.P. No. 219 of 1985 arises out of the order of the said judge in E.P. 342 of 1983 and the second respondent therein, who is the petitioner in E.A. No. 1282 of 1984 is the revision petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are these:- The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 5540 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras against the second respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the scheduled property, entered into between them on 30.10.1967. The suit was decreed on 24.1.1974. Pending suit, the second respondent herein, who is the defendant, has sold the suit property in favour of the revision petitioner by a...
Tag this Judgment!Silver Cloud Tea Factory and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad297
ORDER1. Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory, a partnership firm, is the petitioner in W. P, 10110 of 1984 and 1493, of 1985. The petitioner in W. P. 2151 of 1985 is carrying on business as a retail dealer in tea dealing exclusively with that commodity supplied by Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea factory. In W. P. 10110 of 1984, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of declaration that the Tea (Marketing) Control Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Order ') dt. 19-4-1984 is unconstitutional and ultra vires. However, in W. P. 1493 of 1985, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the second respondent therein dt. 21-8-1984 and to direct him to grant relaxation to the petitioner. In so far as the W. P. 2151 of 1985 is concerned, the petitioner therein has prayed for a writ of declaration that Cl. 17 of the Order dt. 19-4-1984 is void and inoperative.2. The petitioner in W. P. 10110 of 1984, and 1493 of 1985, namely Messrs. Silver Cloud Tea Factory, applied to the ...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Muniraj and anr. Vs. the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. by Its Agent a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ139
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. The revision is directed against the order of the first Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in E.A.No. 283 of 1984 in E.P. No. 69 of 1984. The petitioners in E.A. No. 283 of 1984 are the revision petitioners.2. The important question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, whether a mortgagor/defendant is entitled under Order 34, Rule 5, C.P.C to deposit into court all the amounts due from him including 5% of the amount of the purchase money paid by the court auction purchaser and seek redemption of the mortgage till a formal order of confirmation of the auction sale is made by the Court or whether he is bound to deposit the money before the expiry of the period (now 10 days from the date of sale) for filing an application to set aside the auction sale or before an application to set aside the sale is finally disallowed.2-A. The brief facts of the case necessary for the purpose of this petition are these:-The first respondent herein, which is t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Thanneermalai Chettiar Vs. S.J. Dhanraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ115
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. Landlord is the petitioner. He has filed the petition for eviction of the respondent under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that he required the premises for his own occupation. The petition mentioned premises is a residential one and the rate of rent is Rs. 100 per mensem. According to the petitioner, he wants to leave Devakottai and settle down at Villupuram and hence he barely needs the premises for his own occupation. He issued a notice on 12.9.1980 to the respondent calling upon him to vacate the premises to which the respondent sent a reply with false allegations. The said petition was resisted by the respondent. He filed a counter inter alia contending that the petitioner is an young man aged about 23 years and that all his vested interest and properties are only at Devakottai. Besides that, his father is also a busin...
Tag this Judgment!Pappa Alias Rajaboopathy Ammal Vs. Rajammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ52
ORDERG. Maheswaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing the petition filed by the judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 83 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to permit her to negotiate private sale of the property. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable. I have to uphold that order though not for the reasons stated by the learned trial Judge. Under Order 21, Rule 83, Civil Procedure Code, it is open to the Court to postpone the sale to enable the judgment-debtor to raise the amount of decree either by mortgage or lease or private sale of such property or some part thereof or of any other immovable property of the judgment-debtor. But, Sub-rule (3) of Rule 83 says that nothing in Rule 83(1) shall be deemed to apply to a sale of property directed to be sold in execution of a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage of, or charge on, such property. The decree sought to...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugham Pillai Vs. A.P. Aruladum Perumal Pillai (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ462
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He has filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. According to the petitioner herein, he got the suit property and other properties to his share in an oral partition between him and his father. His step-brother Aruladum Perumal Pillai who was born to his father through his second wife, made a claim to the suit property. The defendant (first respondent herein) who is the plaintiff's father's sister's husband represented that a sham and nominal settlement deed might be executed by the petitioner in his favour in order to protect the property; accordingly he executed the settlement deed on 29.7.1972. About two years prior to the filing of the suit, that is, in 1976, the defendant who is the first respondent herein claimed title to the suit property and refused to execute necessary document in favour of the petitioner and also trespassed into the property. To the notice issued by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayaraman Vs. Income-tax Officer, City Circle (1), (2) Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1985
Reported in: [1986]161ITR531(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. The main question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the impugned proceedings of the Income-tax Officer, City Circle I(2), Coimbatore, in PAN PY-2276/1(2) dated May 23, 1985, is in accord with section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. A warrant was issued by the Director of Inspection, Madras, for a search of the residential premises of the petitioner at No. 93, Kaleeswarar Nagar, Coimbatore. Armed with that warrant, a search was made. Cash of Rs. 53,212 was found and Rs. 40,000 was seized from out of it. Out of the 1,926 grams of old jewellery, 800 grams were seized. A number of silver articles weighing 14,772 grams were also found but they were, however, not seized. 3. To finalise the order under section 132(5), a notice under rule 112A was issued on December 10, 1984. Thereupon, the assessee filed his reply on December 26, 1984. A further opportunity was given to the petitioner. The circumstances under which time came to be given need not be dilat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »