Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2009Mad196
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. This writ petition raises a question as to whether the Registrar of Trade Marks can allow a notice of opposition to the registration of a trade mark to be given beyond the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 2. In other words, this writ petition raises the question as to whether the Registrar of Trade Marks can receive a notice of opposition to the registration of a trade mark given beyond the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 3. The short facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are hereunder: The petitioner and the respondent - 3 herein are both companies engaged in the manufacture and marketing of alcoholic beverages including Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). One of the brands under which the petitioner sells its alcoholic beverages being whisky is known as 'Officer's Choice'. The petitioner claims that the product under this brand name is in the market since 1988, but the petitioner bec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1961Mad186; (1960)2MLJ372
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar, J. setting aside an award made on the 25th November 1952 in the following circumstances. On 30th January, 1952, the respondents, a registered firm of yam merchants carrying on business at Madras, agreed to buy from the appellant, Messrs. Louis Dreyfus and Co. Ltd., a company carrying on business at Madras ten bales of cotton yarn in hanks (2 crores) (XX) reels 1/80s combed Egyptian Warp Twist manufactured in Italy 5lb. bundles, 50 bundles per bale at 187 per lb. C. I. F, Madras in two lots of five bales each. By another contract, the respondents agreed to buy seven more bales of the same kind of yarn at 180 d. per lb. C. I. F.On intimation received by the respondents that the said seventeen bales were due to arrive they paid for the drafts and obtained the respective bills of lading, took delivery on the 14th April, 1952 of the five bales on the 8th May, 1952, another five bales and on the 12th May 1952 the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ588
Srinivasan, J.1. The petition for divorce is filed on the ground of adultery combined with cruelty. The wife is the petitioner. The District Judge after having found that adultery is not true has granted a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty alone. That decree cannot be sustained in view of the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act. Under that Act, divorce can be granted under Section 10 of the Act, only when the adultery is combined with other acts mentioned therein. For mere cruelty, divorce cannot be granted. If at all, the court can grant only judicial separation under Section 32 of the Act. This principle is laid down in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Maria Mercy Virgenia v. Lazar (1992) 1 L.W. 43. On a perusal of the records, we are convinced that the evidence is overwhelming to prove the cruelty on the part of the husband which will justify a decree for divorce a menea et toro, in other words, a decree for judicial separation. The petitioner's counsel draws our at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1975)2MLJ95
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of Mohan, J. holding that the petition filed by the appellant-father praying for a declaration that he is the guardian of the persons of the minors and for the restoration of the custody of the minors to the father is not maintainable.2. The petition is a continuation of a longstanding and bitter litigation between the father and the mother of the minor children. A suit O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962 was filed for judicial separation. Judicial separation was granted and certain directions were given regarding the custody of the minor children. The father filed O.P. No. 270 of 1970 for the custody of the minor children. There were three children out of the marriage, and custody of two minor children was given to the mother. The lather preferred an appeal and the wife a memorandum of objections against the judgment in so far as it was against them, the father and the mother claiming custody of the thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed in S.C.No.78 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed in S.C.No.78 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in and by which, the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced as tabulated hereunder: ad>Sl.No.Conviction under SectionSentence of imprisonmentFine1Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Actten years rigorous imprisonmentRs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment2Section 6(1-A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Actone year rigorous imprisonmentRs.1,000/- , in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment 2. The gist of the prosecution case leading to conviction of the appellant/accused is as follows: The appellant herein is a Srilankan (Tamil speaking). He is residing along with his family in Trichy. He was making...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1999ACJ136; 1997(3)CTC168; (1998)IMLJ609
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since common questions involve in all the above appeals, the same may be disposed of by the following Orders:2. All the above appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company questioning its liability in view of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as terms and conditions of the policy executed in the respective cases.3. In C.M.A.No.227 of 1987 the wife and children of the deceased Varadarasu Pillai have filed M.C.O.P.No.l30 of 1985 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, claiming a sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation. Since the deceased died while he was travelling in a goods vehicle accompanying the goods, they have impleaded the owner of the lorry as well as his insurer as respondents. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the lorry, passed an award for Rs. 55,250 in favour of the petitioner therein and directed both the respondents to pay the same joint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad560; (1940)1MLJ314
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents' mother in the Court of the District Munsif of Nellore for a decree setting aside a conveyance on the ground of fraud. The respondents' mother was an ignorant cultivator and she bought from the first defendant in the suit, the appellants' father, certain wet lands in the Nellore District. The first defendant had granted a lease of these lands for seven years to a third party. Not only did the first defendant fail to disclose this fact to the vendee, but he represented to her that she could take immediate possession and cultivate the lands. This amounted to a fraudulent misrepresentation and as this is the finding of the District Judge on first appeal it cannot be challenged in this Court. The District Munsif held that there was no fraud, but granted the plaintiff a decree for damages based on the amount of two years' mesne profits. The District Judge reversed this decision and dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1998)1MLJ609
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since, common questions involve in all the above appeals, the same may be disposed of by the following order:2. All the above appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company questioning its liability in view of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as terms and conditions of the policy executed in the respective cases.3. In C.M.A. No. 227 of 1987 the wife and children of the deceased Varadarasu Pillai have filed M.C.O.P. No. 130 of 1985 before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, claiming a sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation. Since the deceased died while he was travelling in a goods vehicle accompanying the goods, they have impleaded the owner of the lorry as well as his insurer as respondents. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the lorry, passed an award for Rs. 55,250 in favour of the petitioner therein and directed both the respondents to pay the same jointl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996CriLJ4322; II(1996)DMC295
ORDER1. An important question of law, that too, of general importance is as to whether a minor child of divorced Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from its father even after the child attained the age of more than two years. In other words, the important question of law is whether a divorced woman can claim maintenance from her former husband for the child born to her through that husband after the child attained the age of two years under Section 125, Cr.P.C., despite the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act of 1986'). 2. The petitioner/husband has presented this revision before this Court, challenging the order dated 16-2-1993, passed in Crl. R. C. No. 62 of 1992, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, granting maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to the 2nd respondent herein, minor Yashmin, by setting aside the order dated 12-3-19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1983]139ITR396(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - The following question has been propounded by the Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 25,655 in computing the total income ?'The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, SM. M. Muthappa Chettiar and SM.KR. Karuppan Chettiar, who are sons of one Somasundaram Chettiar. They belong to the former Indian State of Pudukottai and hailed from a village known as Nachiarpuram. Somasundaram had a brother by name Chockalingam Chettiar, who started a business in money-lending in Ipoh. Somasundaram joined the said business as a partner. In the partnership, Chockalingam had 5/8ths share and Somasundaram 3/8ths share. This firm was brought into existence under the terms of an instrument of partnership dated May 9, 1921. The two brothers had an uncle by name Vaduganathan Chettiar who became a sub-partner with Somasundara...
Tag this Judgment!