Chennai Court July 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.
Aravind Laboratories Vs. V.A. Samy Chemical Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ174
Mishra, J.1. The appellant herein filed C.S. No. 434 of 1984 for (1) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from manufacturing and selling and offering for sale the offending trade mark 'Rani Eyevix' which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trade 'Eyetex'; (2) directing the defendants to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned by the defendant through the manufacture and sale of the offending trade mark 'Rani Eyevix' and directing such profits to be paid to the plaintiff by way of damages for the infringing and passing off committed by the defendant, and (3) directing the defendants to surrender to plaintiffs all the cartons, labels and any other printed matters containing or consisting of the offending 'Rani Eyevix' trade mark together with the blocks used for the purpose of printing the same for destruction.2. The trial court has granted the relief of injunction and directed the defendants to surrender to plaintiffs all the carto...
D. Jeyaselvi Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ130
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.5.1993 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 16097 of 1991. Learned single Judge has quashed the order of the Appellate Authority and the decision of the Selection Committee and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant and the 6th respondent were considered for filling up of a post of Headmistress in the 5th respondent School. The Selection Committee selected the appellant Consequently, the 6th respondent challenged the order of the Selection Committee before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Appellate Authority set aside the decision of the Selection Committee and directed that the 6th respondent herein should be appointed as Headmistress of the 5th respondent School. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the appellan...
Phonix Enterprise Co. Ltd., and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ603
Srinivasan, J.1. Defendants 2 and 4 have preferred this appeal against the decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, for a sum of Rs. 62,012.25 with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. The suit was dismissed as against defendants 1 and 3.2. The case of the plaintiffs is this: The first defendant is the owner Disponent and/or carriers and as such is interested in the vessel viz., 'orient glory'. The second defendant is the carrier of goods by sea and also the ship owner. The third defendant is the agent of the second defendant in Japan. The fourth defendant is the agent of the second defendant in India. A consignment of 1,70,000 bags of urea of a total weight of 85,58,140 kilos was shipped under four bills of lading marked as Exs.A-35 to A-38 at China, Japan, in the vessel 'orient glory' to discharge at the Indian ports. The port of discharge is Cuddalore. The ship arrived in Indian port and unloading began on 3.3.197...
Vellachi Ammal and ors. Vs. the Superintending Engineer (South Arcot D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ388
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This petition seeks permission for the petitioners to file the Appeal SR. No. 83501 of 1992 against O.S. No. 55 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court; Villupuram as indigent persons. No doubt, the trial court in O.S. No. 55 of 1989 has held that the said suit is barred by limitation and hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. Though in the suit the plaintiffs were allowed to sue as indigent persons, they cannot automatically get similar permission in this appeal also. So far as appeals by indigent persons, Order 44, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code provides as follows:Any person en titled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay the fee required for the memorandum of appeal, may present an application accompanied by a memorandum of appeal, and may be allowed to appeal as an indigent / person subject, in all matters including the presentation of such application, to the provisions relating to suits by indigent persons in so far as those provisions are applicable.So, according...
Kannadian Kalvai Neer Pasana Vivasayigal Sangam, Represented by Its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ596
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 5.3.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 3556 of 1993. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner in the writ petition has come up in appeal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for a declaration that the respondents are not entitled to enhance the local cess and local cess surcharge under Sections 115 and 116 respectively of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1958, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1992, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without being preceded by a resolution of a duly elected Panchayat Union Council constituted under the Act.3. It is not in dispute that during the period when the local cess and local cess surcharge were enhanced, the elected Panchayat Union Council was not functioning. In exercise of the power vested under Section 155 of the Act, the Panchayat Union Council was dissolved by the State Government. An officer of the Govern...
B.P. Samiappan (Died) and ors. Vs. Arunthavaselvan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ146
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance instituted by the appellant herein. It is the case of the appellant that under Ex. A-1,dated 12.4.1971 defendants land 2 agreed to sell the suit properties at the rate of Rs. 4,500 per acre. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid as advance on the date of agreement. The total consideration works out to Rs. 66,040. Initially, it was agreed that the sale should be executed within a period of one year. On 5.4.1972, an endorsement was made extending the period for completion of the transaction till 5.5.1972. On 3.5.1972 another endorsement was made by which the period was extended to 15.5.1972. On 13.5.1972 an endorsement was made evidencing payment of Rs. 10,000 by way of further advance and extending the time to 13.8.1972. Thereafter, there was no extention of time as such. On 3.8.1972 a sum of Rs. 19,000 was paid and a receipt was executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has paid a s...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Venkidasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas136(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In these appeals and revision petitions at the instance of the Oriental Insurance Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurance company'), against a common award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge's Court), Madurai, in M.C.O.P. Nos. 273, 274, 276, 278 and 409 of 1988 and M.C.O.P. Nos. 275, 277 and 279 of 1988 respectively, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the appellant-insurance company for payment of compensation. There is no dispute now that on April 7, 1988, the tractor bearing registration No. TMW-7273 belonging to one K. S. Krishnamurthy was involved in an accident. At the time of the accident, a trailer was attached to the tractor, in which the deceased and others, who had sustained injuries, were travelling. Alleging that the accident took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and its trailer, the claimants prayed ...
Amudha and Others Vs. the Inspector of Police, Law and Order and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ404
Arunachalam, J.1. Both these petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the cause is the same. These two petitions, preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by the daughter and the father respectively, are now before us, on the orders passed by the Honourable Chief Justice, though earlier these two petitions were heard by another Division Bench constituted by K. Venkataswamy, J. and Swamidurai, J. The other bench passed an order on 21-6-1993 which reads, that the petitioner in W.P. No. 4089 of 1993, wanted this writ petition to be heard by some other Bench and in fact on her instructions her Counsel had already preferred a petition pleading for transfer. The Division Bench has stated as follows :- 'In view of that, we do not want to hear these two cases and we direct the office to place the papers before our Lord, the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for posting these two cases before some other Bench.' Thereafter, on the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, bot...
R.P. Ramajayam Vs. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., Ariyalur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR52]; (1993)IIMLJ570
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. By consent of parties, the main writ petition itself has been taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is employed as a drive under the respondent/Corporation, which is a public sector undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu. His service conditions are governed by the Regulations framed in this behalf. By order dated 19.9.1992, he was placed under suspension on the allegation that on 19.9.1992 at about 3.15 p.m., he had driven the tipper vehicle bearing Registration No. TAY. 6482 in a negligent manner resulting in a road accident, as a consequence of which two employees who travelled in the vehicle died. On the very same day, First Information Report was lodged with Kayalarbath Police Station by one A. Srinivasan, Mines Manager of the respondent/Corporation. The substance of the First Information Report is that one Tamil Selvan, an employee of the respondent who travelled in another vehicle, had reported that the petitioner had driven his vehicle in high...
Karuppannan Vs. Sudhamathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC457; (1993)IIMLJ293
Thangamani, J.1. The appellant herein married the respondent in 1986 and a male child was born to them on 14-6-1987. The respondent-wife instituted O.P.No. 5 of 1990 in the Court of District Judge, Salem against the appellant alleging that soon after the birth of the child, her husband developed aversion towards her and drove her way from his house. Some two weeks later, he came to her residence and forcibly snatched away the child. All mediations failed and the husband refused to hand over the child. And considering the welfare of the child which is 21/2 years old, the husband must be directed to give the custody to the mother.2. The husband resisted the application contending that the wife chose to live with him only for a short time. Thereafter she was practically residing in her mother's house. She treated him with contempt. After delivery, the mother and child were taken to her mother's place at Namakkal. There was nobody to look after the child or mother. His mother-in-law is emp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »