Chennai Court January 2001 Judgments
Mars Incorporated Vs. Chanda Softy Ice Cream and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad237
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Original Applications Nos. 579 and 580 of 1999 are filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the defendants' business and goods as that of the plaintiffs by use of GALAXY and MILKY WAY or any mark similar thereto in respect of ice creams, frozen foods, snack foods and also to restrain them from in any manner infringing the applicants' registered trade mark GALAXY and MILKY WAY or any mark similar to that pending disposal of the suit.2. Applications Nos. 3446 to 3449 of 2000 have been filed by defendants 1 to 3 to suspend the order of interim injunction and also to vacate the order of interim injunction granted in O. As. 579 and 580 of 1999 dated 23-9-1999.3. The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows :The plaintiff is a world leader in branded snack foods, petcare products, main meal foods, electronic payment systems and drinks ve...
Tag this Judgment!Kankani Tea Traders (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Vijaya Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2001
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas542(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioners are the accused in T. R. C. No. 1456 of 1999 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor. The first respondent is the complainant. According to the complaint preferred by the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the second respondent as well as against the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, the second respondent M/s. Ranjith Commercial Company had business dealings with the petitioners in respect of which the petitioners issued a cheque No. 269274 dated October 26, 1998, in favour of the second respondent for Rs. 10 lakhs drawn on Global Trust Bank Limited, Coimbatore. The first respondent purchased the said cheque from the second respondent for consideration. Thereafter, the first respondent presented the cheque for collection on March 20, 1999, in the capacity of the holder in due course. But the said cheque was returned uncleared on the same date with the endorsem...
Tag this Judgment!Vaijayanthimala and ors. Vs. A. Ramasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ768
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 207 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Periyakulam are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The petitioners have challenged in this civil revision petition the fair and decretal order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai in C.M.A. No. 20 of 1999 dated 21.9.2000 confirming the order of the learned Sub Judge, Periyakulam made in I.A. No. 385 of 1998 in O.S. No. 207 of 1994 dated 21.12.98. The respondent filed a suit in Sub Court, Periyakulam against the petitioners herein for a judgment and decree for specific performance and in the alternative to bring the schedule mentioned property for sale. In the said suit, the petitioners were set ex parte on 5.7.1996 and an ex parte decree was passed on 11.7.1996. The petitioners filed I.A. No. 385 of 1996 to set aside the judgment and decree passed on 11.7.1996. The 1st petitioner filed an affidavit in support of the said petition stating that when the suit was poste...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jagannathan Vs. A.M. Vasudevan Chettiar and 12 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad184; (2001)1MLJ614
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai is the appellant in the above appeal. He filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/9th share. By judgment and decree dated 4.5.85 the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present appeal before this Court.2. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the amended plaint is briefly stated hereunder:-Defendants 1, 5 and 8 are brothers and sons of one A.R. Manickam Chettiar. Defendants 6 and 7 are the sons of 5th defendant. The plaintiff and the 9th defendant are the sons of 8th defendant. All the above said persons constitute a Hindu joint family. A.R. Manickam Chettiar was a leading businessman of Madukkur. Even during his life time his 3 sons were doing business on behalf of their family. They acquired vast extent of lands and houses. The members of the family were doing business on be...
Tag this Judgment!Rajathi Vs. Arukkani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ364
ORDER1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the court below dated 29.3.2000 made in I.A.No.23 of 2000 in O.S.No.22 of 1994, rejecting the petitioner's application to receive the document styled as partition list between one Ganapathy Udayar and his sons dated 10.6.1992 as the secondary evidence. The court below while rejecting the application was of the view that the said document was not a registered one, that when no share was allotted to the respondent as per the said document, and the said document said to have been contained thump impression of the respondent, it is doubtful as to whether the document would bind the respondent, that the document does not disclose as to with whom the original has been entrusted, that the contents of the said document can be proved only by examining the persons who are concerned with the said document, that the said document can be proved only by examining the vendor of the petitioner namely, Mr.Ravichandran and therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union Vs. Industrial Tribunal and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ345Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The above two writ petitions arise out of a common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated September 7, 1999, in I.D. No. 13 of 1990. Writ Petition No. 7797 of 2000, has been filed by the All India Overseas Bank Employees Union, hereinafter called the union, in. so far as it was aggrieved against that part of the award declining to give effect to the relief from April 1, 1978, i.e., the date of demand and the failure to order payment of 90 per cent of wages and benefits of clerical staff in the second respondent-bank hereinafter called the bank to part-time jewel appraisers, Writ Petition No. 12015 of 2000, has been preferred by the bank namely, the Indian Overseas Bank, challenging the award in I.D. No. 13 of 1990, in its entirety.2. The genesis of the case is that in the bank management out of various credit facilities made available to its customers, one such facility was grant of agricultural jewel loan. Whenever a borrower tenders a jewe...
Tag this Judgment!Baliah David A. Vs. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ270Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The writ petitioner, in connection with the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him by the disciplinary authority, at different points of time, seeking different reliefs has filed all the above four writ petitions along with yet another in 1086 of 1996, of which, the other W.P. No. 1086 of 1995 filed against the order dated January 2, 1990 suspending the writ petitioner since dismissed as infructuous, as per the orders of this Court dated September 9, 1996, all the remaining four writ petitions, which are all in some form or other connected to the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him, have been altogether taken up for a joint hearing as a result of which this common order is passed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, W.P. Nos. 11803 of 1992, 11804 of 1992, 1087 of 1993 and 15947 of 1993 are hereinafter referred to as the first, second, third and fourth writ petitions respectively. 3. So far as the first writ petition in W.P. No....
Tag this Judgment!Guru Vittal P. and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Enfo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR649]; (2001)IIILLJ1244Mad; (2001)2MLJ287
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. These two writ petitions are interconnected and hence the same are dealt with in common. The result of W.P. No. 10227 of 2000 is dependent upon the result of W.P. No. 6242 of 2000. Writ Petition No. 6242 of 2000 has been preferred by the partners of one Sri Padmanabha Theatre situated at Waltax Road, Chennai 600 069. The said theatre is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. At the instance of the first and second respondents proceedings were initiated for recovery of contributions in respect of the establishment, Sri Padmanabha Theatre for the period from November 1996 to May 1999.2. It transpires that a total sum of Rs. 5,74, 177.50 was found to be due from the establishment by way of contribution and other charges. By proceedings dated August 5, 1999, the Recovery Officer was furnished with the certificate under Section 8-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sankaralingam Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2739
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Sankaralingam, the petitioner herein has filed this application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him by the respondent, the Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force (RPF) in C.C. No. 139/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Ponneri for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.2. According to the prosecution, that on 1-7-1998, on receipt of reliable information, the Inspector, RPF, Crime Intelligence Branch, Chennai Division along with his party proceeded to Sri Lakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills, Manali Express Highway, Eranavur, Chennai-600057 where railway materials are unlawfully stored, after sending advance intimation to the Court and conducted investigation and found that 10 Nos. of Rail pieces were possessed unlawfully and recovered them. Accused 1 and 2 were arrested, as they were the persons available on the spot. The statement of accused 1 and 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Samuel Alias Manas and anr. Vs. Dasamma Nadathy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ568
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The revision petitions arise under the following circumstances:A final decree for redemption in favour of the respondents herein was passed on 28.3.1977. The respondents filled execution petition in E.P.No. 413 of 1977. As they had not deposited the value of improvements, it was dismissed on 15.3.1978. Thereafter, they filed afresh E.P. on 11.10.1985. It was returned on 17.4.1986 as the value of improvements had not been deposited. The same was re-presented with a challan for deposit for the value of improvements in 1997 (7.4.1997). The Executing Court directed the E.P. to be numbered on 9.4.1997. The petitioners herein received notice from court for appearance on 11.8.1997. The number shown in the notice was E.A.No. 85 of 1997, which was for excusing the delay in depositing the value of improvements. The petitioners filed E.A.No. l 14 of 1999 for setting aside the order dated 9.4.1997 passed by the executing court directing the execution petition to be numbered. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »