Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1962Mad52
(1) This appeal originally came before a Division Bench of this court. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was incompetent. The ruling of this court inRadhakrishnamurthy v. Ethirajulu Chetti and Co., ILR 1945 Mad 564 : (AIR 1945 Mad 184), directly supported the preliminary objection. But, after some argument, it was considered that decision required reconsideration. Hence, this reference to a Full Bench.(2) The appeal purports to be filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Ramaswami, J. In C. M. A. No. 531 of 1954. That appeal was against an order of the City Civil Court, dismissing an application filed by the respondent under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of a suit (O. S. No. 538 of 1954) on the file of the City Civil Court. Section 39(1) inter alia provider for an appeal form an order staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement (cl. (V)).The question is whether an appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad896; (1931)60MLJ25
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a rule calling upon 'the Minister, Public Health, Government of Madras,' to show cause why an order made by him on the 11th of March, 1929, should not be quashed on certiorari. The ground on which the rule was obtained may be shortly stated. The Nuzvid Union Board granted permission to a certain person to establish a rice mill within its jurisdiction. The Collector suspended the resolution of the Board, as, in his opinion, the establishment of a mill in the locality in question 'was likely to be detrimental to public health'. The Local Government passed proceedings under Sections 38 and 196 of the Local Boards Act (1920), on the 9th of June, 1928, directing that the Collector's order 'shall continue in force permanently'. Subsequently this order was rescinded on the 11th of March, 1929, the result being that permission to establish the mill was accorded. This rule was issued at the instance of certain residents of the locality who complained that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1918)35MLJ23
1. This was a suit brought by Messrs. Best & Co. Ltd., a firm of merchants carrying on business in this city, for a declaration that an agreement dated the 4th October 1915 entered into by them with the Collector of Madras of the day was binding on the parties. The action is brought because, on the 22nd May 1917, the Collector purporting to act in consequence of the Income-Tax Act, V of 1916 declared that the agreement was no longer binding on him and repudiated it. The plaintiffs tendered the sum that they sad to be due under the agreement and brought this action to safeguard their rights under it. The agreement is one made with the Collector of Madras under the provisions of the former Income-Tax Act (II of 1886) Section 31, which enables persons, instead of being reassessed every year, to arrange with the Collector for a definite sum to be assessed for a fixed period and in this case the period agreed upon was five years from the 1st April 1915. The plaintiffs originally sued the Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 979 of 2007 is the defendant in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007.2. C.S. No. 1111 of 2007 is a suit filed under Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaintiff's patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said patent and/or manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale or exporting 2/3 wheelers, including the proposed 125-CC FLAME motorcycle containing an internal combustion engine or any internal combustion engine or product which infringes the plaintiff's patent No. 195904, claiming of damages for infringement of patent to the extent of Rs. 10,50,000/- etc.Pending the said suit, the plaintiff therein, namely Bajaj Auto Limited has filed O.A. 1357 of 2007 praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner infringing the applicant's patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/ invention described in the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR280(Madras); 2004(2)CTC334; (2004)2MLJ554
1. The above appeal is filed against the order dated 19.12.2000 in C.M.A.No.874 of 1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. We need not go into the merits of the case, in view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the above appeal.3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, second appeal is not maintainable, as barred under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. To appreciate the said condition, it is beneficial to extract Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which reads as follows:' Section 39: Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act and from none others to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order: An order- (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23. 01-2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Suit No.562 of 2007 M.C.Jayasingh ...Plaintiff Vs 1. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI) rep.by its Managing Director, Kanchanbagh Hyderabad 500 058.2. Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills Road Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 033.3. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited Ali Towers, IV Floor, 55, Greams Road Chennai 600 006.4. Cancer Institute (W.I.A) (Regional Cancer Centre), Canal Bank Road Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. ...Defendants ----- Plaint under Order VII, Rule 1, CPC, read with Order IV, Rule of the Original Side Rules, Section 108 read with Section 50(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Section 22(2)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. ----- For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Sundar For Defendant-1 : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For Defendants 2&3 : Mr.C.Manishankar For Defendant-4 : Mr.N.L.Rajah ----- JUDGMENT This is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : LC2009(2)139; 2009(40)PTC689(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. O.S.A. No. 91 of 2008 has been filed by the Appellant as against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1272 of 2007 in C.S. No. 979 of 2007, in and by which, the Appellant's application for an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent herein from in any way interfering with the manufacturing and marketing of the Appellant's products using Internal Combustion (IC) engine with 3 valves and 2 spark plugs pending the disposal of C.S. No. 979 of 2007 was rejected.2. O.S.A. No. 92 of 2008 has also been filed by the same Appellant challenging the order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1357 of 2007, in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007, wherein, the Respondent's prayer for an ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant herein from in any manner infringing the Respondent's Patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said Patent No. 195904 and/or from manufacturing, marketing etc., for sale or exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad694
Mack, J.1. This, is a Letters Patent Appeal admitted by a learned Bench of this court against C. M. A. No. 522 of 1952, against an order by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. dismissing an appeal against an order of the learned City Civil Judge Madras, refusing to stay O. S. No. 405 of 1952 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940.2. The facts are shortly these. Appellant and the defendant in the suit is the South India Co-operative Insurance Society. Ltd.. Madras. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent as a nominee of an insurance policy taken but with, this society by his late brother, Mr. Viyyanna, an advocate, who died on 10-4-1949. The policy was a double endowment policy No. 2190 dated 9-4-1935, under which a sum of Rs. 1,000 was payable if the assured died within a period of 15 years from the date of the policy. An enhanced sum of Rs. 2,000 would become payable if he survived this period.The policy matured on 8-4-1950 and the last premium was payable on 9-1-1950. The Soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad261
1. The defendants in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 (A.A.) are appellants.2. The suit is for an order (1) that the agreement dated nth July, 1962, between, the parties providing for a reference to-arbitration in respect of matters in dispute to which the agreement relates be filed into Court; (2) determining the questions of difference between the parties-to which the agreement dated nth July, 1962, applies and (3) appointing an arbitrator with a direction to proceed, with the arbitration in respect of matters-in dispute between the parties and pass an award in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 136, Jessore Road, Calcutta. The second defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 51, Canal East Road, Calcutta. The Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff entered into an agreement dated nth July, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ424
V.V. Raghavan, J. 1. The defendants in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 (A.A.) are appellants.2. The suit is for an order (1) that the agreement dated nth July, 1962, between, the parties providing for a reference to-arbitration in respect of matters in dispute to which the agreement relates be filed into Court; (2) determining the questions of difference between the parties-to which the agreement dated nth July, 1962, applies and (3) appointing an arbitrator with a direction to proceed, with the arbitration in respect of matters-in dispute between the parties and pass an award in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 136, Jessore Road, Calcutta. The second defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 51, Canal East Road, Calcutta. The Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff entered into an agreement...
Tag this Judgment!