Privy Council Court March 1942 Judgments

Kuppaimetu Guruvappa Naicker Vs. M. Mounaguruswami Naicker

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1942PC37

LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Madras, dated 21st September 1938, by which an order of the District Judge of Madura, dated 17th July 1936, dismissing an application for execution, was reversed. The decree, the execution of which was applied for, was made on 22nd August 1911, by the District Judge of Madura on a compromise in original Suit No. 81 of 1909, in which the present respondent was plaintiff, and the present appellant was defendant. While the respondent, in his application for execution, asked for the arrest of the judgment debtor and other remedies provided under O. 21, R.32.Civil PC, he has stated, as recorded by both Courts below, that he was alone interested to have his rights under the compromise decree ascertained, and the dispute has been confined to this question. Their Lordships, accordingly, declined to allow the appellant to maintain before them for the first time that, even assuming that the proper construction were as claimed ...

The Coca-cola Company of Canada Ltd. Vs. Pepsi-cola Company of Canada ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1942PC40

LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: These are consolidated appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada delivered on appeal from a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada in an action for the alleged infringement of a registered trade mark, 43/10433. The Exchequer Court held the defendant to have infringed the mark, but dismissed a counter claim by the defendant for cancellation of its registration. The Supreme Court reversed this judgment on infringement and dismissed the action, but affirmed the dismissal of the counter claim. Both parties have appealed to His Majesty in council, the plaintiff from the dismissal of the action, and the defendant from the dismissal of the counter claim. At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel in support of the plaintiff's appeal, their Lordships intimated that they did not require to hear counsel on behalf of the defendant; and thereupon the defendant's counsel stated that the defendant did not wish to proceed with the appeal on the counter cla...

Secretary of State Vs. Sri NaraIn Khanna

Court: Privy Council

SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: This appeal arises out of certain land acquisition proceedings. The property concerned consists of a house and outhouses belonging to the respondent situate within the Meerut Cantonment. The land on which it stands was held by him from the Government on what is commonly known as the cantonment tenure. Grants to individuals of lands within cantonments are regulated by General Order of the Governor-General in Council, No. 179, dated 12th September 1836, which has been repeated in a series of subsequent regulations. Their Lordships had occasion to consider the nature of the cantonment tenure in a land acquisition case which came before the Board recently, 66 IA 258, (1) from the Peshawar Cantonment. In that case their Lordships observed that : "Where the Government grant any rights to individual's within the area of the cantonments, one of the cardinal conditions is that the Government retain the power of resumption at any time on giving one month's notice. If they give...