Chennai Court February 1993 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.
M.S. Velappan, Propritor, Ponni Production Vs. K.S. Gopalakrishnan, Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ225
Mishra, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court under which he has decreed the suit in part for declaration and rendition of accounts only with proportionate costs.2. The plaintiff/respondent herein instituted a suit in the City Civil Court being O.S. No. 10529 of 1976 for a declaration that the plaintiff alone is entitled to the negative rights of a Tamil talkie film 'Kai Kodutha Deivam' in all its versions in respect to the entire world excluding certain specified territories. He, however, filed another suit viz., C.S. No. 124ofl980on the Original side of this Court for the relief of declaration common to the suit in the City Civil Court and for rendition of accounts and payment of special damages tot he tune of Rs. 5,000 by defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 9. The first defendant in C.S. No. 124 of 1980 filed a suit in the City Civil Court being O.S. No. 291 of 1979, which was transferred to this Court for being tried along with C.S. No. 124 of...
M. Manickam Pillai Vs. Kuppulakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ252
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal against the reversing judgment in A.S. No. 149 of 1981 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore. the Suit O.S. No. 773 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, is (i) for setting aside the order, dated 20.12.1977 in the claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, E.A. No. 367 of 1977 in E.P. No. 299 of 1975 in O.S. No. 755 of 1971, (ii) and for directing defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000 to the plaintiff for wrongful attachment and wrongful sale of the suit property The said dismissal was no doubt, confirmed in C.R.P. No. 678 of 1978 by this Court on 4.4.1978. However, since the attachment in question was effected on 27.11.1975 and since to such a case the law existing prior to the 1976 amendment of C.P.C. was alone applicable, the present suit has been filed under Rule. 63 of Order 21, C.P.C. (The said Rule 63 was deleted by the abovesaid 1976 amendment, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›