Chennai Court March 2017 Judgments
Sivaji Productions, Rep. by its Managing Partner G. Ramkumar Vs. Symph ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2017
(Prayer: The suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, for the following reliefs:- (a) to pass a judgment and decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agent/agents, or any person claiming through or under the defendant, from in any manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff viz., Indian VCD and/ or DVD rights, over the Tamil feature film Aasal , in any manner whatsoever; (b) pass a judgment and decree of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to deliver and handover to the plaintiff all the infringing VCDs and DVDs of the Tamil feature film Aasal . 1. The suit is filed for a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, from in any manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff viz., Indian VCD and/or DVD rights, over the Tamil feature film Aasal , in any manner whatsoever; and for a Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to deliver and handover to the pl...
Tag this Judgment!G. Vasantha Vs. Maharaja Kallash Benefit Fund Ltd., Represented by its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2017
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the District Court, Nagapattinam in O.S.No.68 of 2004 dated 08.02.2008.) 1. The defendant who has suffered a money decree in O.S.No.124 of 2003 on the file of the District Court Nagapattinam is the appellant. The respondent which is a Benefit Fund incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, instituted the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,45,333/- allegedly due on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant on 21.05.2000 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 21.05.2000 promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. The defendant did not come forward to pay the amount, inspite of legal notice dated 20.12.2002, on the other hand she has chosen to issue a reply on 02.01.2003 denying the very borrowing. Hence, the plaintiff filed the above suit. In the plaint, the plaintiff had stat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›