Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad105
ORDERP.K. Sethuraman, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. is against the order by the Vacation Judge and District Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, in I.A. No. 327 of 1988 in O.S No. 124 of 1984. The petitioner is the respondent/defendant in the suit. The revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Vacation Judge and District Judge in the application filed under Order 41, Rule 5(2)(3) and(4) and Section 151, C.P.C. by the plaintiff after the judgment dismissing the suit praying to stay the operation of the judgment and decree dated 31-5-1988 in the suit O.S. No. 124 of 1984 allowing present status quo for a reasonable time to enable the petitioner/plaintiff to get copies, prefer an appeal and obtain further orders from the appellate Court. 2. The defendant/respondent is shown to have taken notice and has prayed for time for filing counter and thereupon the order had been passed by the learned Judge stating that time had been grante...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad182; (1988)IIMLJ516
Mohan, J.1. All these appeals can be dealt with in a common judgment.2. O.S.A. 17 of 1988 is filed against an order dated 10-4-1987 in Appn. No. 4972 of 1986 in C.S.797 of 1986 on the Original Side of this Court. O.S.A. 18 of 1988 is against an order of even date in Appn. No. 542 of 1987 in the above said suit. O.S.A. 19 of 1988 is against an order of even date in Appn. No. 548 of 1987 in the above said suit.3. The short facts leading to these appeals are :-- The matter arises under Section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The respondent before us, viz, Exxon Packing Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed three applications for the following reliefs. Appn No. 4971 of 1986 was to grant an injunction restraining the appellants before us from claiming any exclusive right with respect of the trade mark 'Exxon' in respect of the goods specified in respondent's trade mark Appln. dated 25-11-1986 for packing machines and for spare parts for such machineries pending disposal of the suit. App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ287
Ratnam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. 183 of 1973, District Munsif's Court, Tirunelveli, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was instituted by deceased Shanmugham Pillai, whose legal representatives are respondents 1 to 8 herein, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,979-77 towards the amounts due on two mortgages dated 24.2.1958 for Rs. 2,000 and 26.2.1959 for Rs. 100 respectively, executed by the appellant in his favour. On 26.3.1973, a preliminary decree for sale in form 5-A of the Appendix D to the Civil Procedure Code was passed and the appellant was directed to pay into Court on or before 26.4.1973, or, any later date upto which time for payment may be extended by court, a sum of Rs. 4,455-27 with interest on Rs. 2,100 at 6 per cent per annum from 26.3.1973 till the date of payment. Admittedly, the appellant did not pay into Court any amount on or before 26.4.1973 or even later, as it is common ground that time for payment was also not extended. Meanwhile on 5.11.1975, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ516
ORDERMohan, J.1. All these appeals can be dealt with in a common judgment.2. O.SA.No. 17 of 1988 is filed against an order dated 10-4-1987 in Appln. No. 4972 of 1986 in C.S.797 of 1986 on the Original Side of this Court. O.S.A. 18 of 1988 is against an order of even date in Appln. No. 542 of 1987 in the above said suit. O.S.A. 19 of 1988 is against an order of even date in Appln. No. 548 of 1987 in the above said suit.3. The short facts leading to these appeals are:The matter arises under Section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The respondent before us, viz., Exxon Packing Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed three applications for the following reliefs. Appln. No. 4971 of 1986 was to grant an injunction restraining the appellants before us from claiming any exclusive right with respect to the trade mark 'EXXON' in respect to the goods specified in respondent's trade mark Application dated 25-11-1986 for packing machines and for spare parts for such machineries pending disposal o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ20
Bellie, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order passed by Mohan,J. dismissing an application filed under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading of parties in A.S. No. 81 of 1979. This suit was filed by six plaintiffs against six defendants in respect of 87 cents of land for declaration of title against the defendants and for possession from them. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and as against that Appeal A.S. No. 81 of 1979 was filed in this Court by the six plaintiffs as six appellants against the six defendants as respondents. During the pendency of the appeal first defendant - first respondent of the name Palaian died on 24.1.1982. His Legal Representatives were not brought on record in time and therefore the appeal abated. After a long lapse of time the third appellant-third plaintiff filed three petitions one for setting aside the abatement I.A. No. 1557 of 1985, another for condoning the delay of 957 days in filing the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)72CTR(Mad)99; [1988]174ITR697(Mad)
S. Ratnavel Pandian, Offg. C.J. 1. The assessee, viz., M/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Limited, Madras, in its computation of income for the assessment year 1976-77, claimed relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Income-tax Officer, however, while accepting the claim of the assessee, did not accept the quantum of relief claimed by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer, while computing the capital on which relief will have to be worked out, excluded (i) the borrowed capital (about which we are not concerned in this tax case) (ii) the value of the capital work-in-progress; (iii) the value of the stores in transit; and (iv) the value of the raw materials in transit. On the assessee's appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that borrowed capital also should be included in the capital computation, following the decision of this court in Madras Industrial Linings Ltd. v. ITO : [1977]110ITR256(Mad) . Regarding the rema...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)ILLJ395Mad
1. In this writ petition the challenge is to the award in Industrial Dispute No. 172 of 1982, passed by the second respondent in an industrial dispute, raised by the petitioner against the first respondent over the non-employment of the petitioner by the first respondent. The petitioner, on disciplinary action, has been sent out of service by the first respondent. The gravamen of the charge put forth against the petitioner is that the petitioner made collections of moneys from the customers of the first respondent and did not on many occasions remit the collections into the bank either on the same day or the next day as he was bound to under the rules and he used to retain such collections with him for a few days and that in order to make it appear that the remittance was being done the next day after the collection, he used to alter the dates either in the carbon copy of the receipts or the chittas maintained by him. By the impugned award, the second respondent found no warrant for in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ141
Mohan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The appeal arises out of O.S.135 of 1974 preferred by him on the original side of this Court. In the plaint as originally filed two prayers were asked for. viz. (i) for an injunction restraining defendants 1, 3 and 4 from selling or dealing with the suit property to the second defendant or his nominee or to any other person except after giving the plaintiff the first option to purchase the same, and (ii) for a specific performance to direct the defendants 1, 3 and 4 to execute and register a pucca lease deed in terms of the agreement to lease dated 21st August, 1970, fixing up rent subject to a maximum increase of Rs. 100 p.m. Though originally the plaintiff prayed for reliefs against defendants 1 and 2, later on an amendment was sought that the prayers might be granted against defendants 3 and 4 as well.2. Shortly stated, the case of the plaintiff boils down to this. The suit property was leased by the first defendant to the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1989(42)ELT575(Mad)
ORDERThis petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition, and the Order of the Lower Court, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Rajamanickam, Central Govt. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Petitioner, and of Mr. K. Asokan, Advocate for the Respondents, the Court made the following order :- This is a revision petition filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs Ramanathapuram at Madurai under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure complaining that the minimum sentence that shall be awarded has not been awarded to the two accused by the trial court and therefore it is necessary that the sentence awarded by the trial court is set aside and sentence is imposed according to law. 2. The two accused (respondents herein) were prosecuted under Section 135(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Exports and Imports' Control Act, for an offence of evasion of duty in respect of Polyester shirting cloth, Nat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ302
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 7647 of 1973, VII Assistant City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was laid against the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,883-95 comprised of Rs. 4,993-95 towards the value of goods short delivered and interest thereon at six per cent per annum from 24-10-1970 to 24-10-1973, amounting to Rs. 890 and for future interest at six per cent per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.2. The circumstances under which the appellant sought the recovery of the amounts as aforesaid are under: A consignment of 111 drums and 1 bag of sodium nitrate was entrusted by the State Trading Corporation of India with the railway at Wadi Bunder to be carried to Salt Cotaurs as per railway receipt No. 588574 dated 31-8-1970. When the appellant was the owner of the goods sought to obtain delivery, it was found that there was a shortge of 17 quintals and the appellant also obtained from the respond...
Tag this Judgment!