Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1969Mad235
Ramamurti, J. 1. I have perused the judgment of my learned brother; with respect, I entirely agree with his reasonings and conclusions. The only justification for my writing a separate judgment is (as Lord Campbell observed in Piers v. Piers, (1849) 2 HL Cas 331 9 ER 1 118 observed at page 1136), the tremendous responsibility that is cast upon us while rendering this decision which will have grave and serious consequences upon the status of the child. We have bestowed anxious and careful thought over all the aspects of the matter and have reached the clear conclusion that applying all the standards of strict proof beyond all reasonable doubt, as insisted in all matrimonial cases, the appellant had made out a case for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(f) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (referred to herein as the Act) i. e. on the ground that the respondent had had sexual intercourse with some person other than the appellant The prayer for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(2)CTC155; (2004)2MLJ639
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J,1. The appellant herein is the appellant in A.S.No. 342 of 1985 and respondent in A.S.588 of 1986 and defendant in the suit. The respondent herein is the respondent in A.S.No. 342 of 1985 and appellant in A.S.No. 588 of 1986 and the plaintiff in the suit.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff viz., Kovindasamy Naidu Hospital, which is administered by K. Govidasamy Naidu Medical Trust (hereinafter called as the Trust), which is a public Charitable Trust constituted under the deed of Trust dated 27.3.1974. The Trust was found to serve the public by providing medical relief to the general public, by establishing Hospital, Surgical Homes, Nursing Homes etc. The plaintiff comes within the scope of definition of Section 86(e) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter after called as the Act), by construing it as Charitable Hospital and hence eligible for exemption from payment of the property tax. However, the said benefit was not extended to it by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1966)2MLJ318
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned District Judge of Salem, directing the transfer of a suit on his file to this Court, to be tried on the Original Side, purporting to act under Sections 26 and 29 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff under Section 53 of the Act for piracy of a design. The cause of action for the suit was imitation of the plaintiff's registered design, the plaintiff claiming that his design has been registered by the Government of India under the provisions of the Act. The written statement, in meeting this claim, has set up the available defence to such an action. It is pointed out inter alia that there was no question of piracy of the design and that the defendant was taking suitable action for revocation of the registration. However though on the pleadings it can have no relevance, Section 26 of the Act was referred to. The material issues set out herein reflect the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2008Mad119; 2008(2)ARBLR249(Madras); 2008(1)CTC580; (2008)2MLJ1
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. These are appeals from an order passed by S.Rajeswaran, J. The question at issue is whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was at all necessary for filing an application before this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter for brevity's sake referred as to as the 'Act', where a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, but the rest has arisen outside.2. The facts are that respondents 1 to 3 are the majority shareholders of the fourth respondent-M/s. Gordon Woodrroffe Limited. The fourth respondent is the absolute owner of several immovable properties including the properties situate at Chennai. The fourth respondent, of which respondents 1 to 3 are the majority shareholders, being desirous of disposing of its immovable properties, floated a proposal in the form of an Information Memorandum in September, 2005 wherein the modality adopted for such disposal was by way of sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(4)CTC334
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The applicant/plaintiff has filed the suit (i) for a judgment and decree against the respondents/defendants for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the trade mark CHEFPRO and CHEFPRO PLUS, (ii) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright in the lay out, colour scheme, get up, design, artistic work, etc., of the CHEFPRO and CHEFPROPLUS series of mixer grinders and its accessories, (iii) for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, employees from in any manner passing off the defendant's goods as that of the plaintiff's by selling, advertising or offering to sell or using the plaintiffs Trade Marks or any mark or product which is identical with confusingly similar or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs Trade Marks and/or lay out, colour scheme, get up, design, artistic work, etc., of the products, and (iv) for permanent, injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: -4-2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH O.S.A.Nos.36 and 37 of 2012 O.S.A.No.36 of 2012 F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd Group Headquarter Grenzacherstrassee 124 CH-4070 Basel Switzerland Represented by its constituted attorney Ms.Sujatha Subramaniam OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC. 1 Bioscience Park Drive, Farmingdale, New York 11735, United States of America Represented by its constituted attorney Ms.Sujatha Subramaniam Earlier known as OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 41, Pinelawn Road, Melville, New York 11747, United States of America Represented by its constituted attorney Ms.Sujatha Subramaniam .. Appellants. Versus Intas Biopharmaceuticals Limited Plot No.423/P/A Sarkhej-Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Taluka-Sanand, 382210 Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. .. Respondent. Prayer in O.S.A.No.36 of 2012: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Pate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:10. 01.2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN L.P.A.Nos.3 to 6 of 2012 K.Vijayalakshmi .... Appellant in LPA.No.3 of 2012 K.Perumalsamy ... Appellant in LPA.Nos.4 to 6 of 2012 Vs.1. B.Prakasham, The General Manager (TN), Food Corporation of India, 124, Greams Road, Chennai.2. D.Muthuramalingam, The Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, 280, WGC Road, Thoothukud002. ... Respondents in all L.P.As Prayer: LPA.Nos.3 to 6 of 2012 are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 4.6.2012 in Contempt Petition Nos.426, 423, 424 and 425 of 2012 respectively on the file of this Court. COMMON JUDGMENT Whether the single Judge digressed from the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction and whether the Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are maintainable and whether there was any wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 2.6.2011 made in O.A.No.491 of 2011 are t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ990
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in these writ petitions are to quash the orders dated 18.5.2009 and 20.5.2009, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, insofar as W.P. Nos. 9934 and 9935 of 2009 are concerned; the order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, insofar as W.P. No. 10264 of 2009; and the orders dated 30.5.2009 and 8.6.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, insofar as W.P. Nos. 10432 and 10730 of 2009 are concerned.2. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 9935 of 2009 is as follows:(a) The petitioner is an Electronics Engineer by vocation and he invented Plurality of Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) and Plurality of Blue Tooth Technology and its viability using switch circuit technology. According to petitioner, due to his invention, multiple sims can be used at the same time in one instrument.(b) It is claimed by the petitioner that by changi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1998)1MLJ89
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. L.P.A. No. 53 of 1993 was filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (here-inafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 16.12.1991 in C.M.A. No. 554 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation against the order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 283 of 1983.2. L.P.A. No. 179 of 1993 was filed by the Proprietor of Madras Type Foundry against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 24.10.1991 in C.M.A. No. 469 of 1984 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 26 of 1983.3. L.P.A. No. 148 of 1995 was filed by the Corporation against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 7.9.1994 in C.M.A. No. 933 of 1986 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC725; (1998)IMLJ89
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. L.P.A. No. 53 of 1993 was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated December 16, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 554 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation against the order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 283 of 1983. 2. L.P.A. No. 179 of 1993 was filed by the Proprietor of Madras Type Foundry against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated October 24, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 469 of 1984 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 26 of 1983. 3. L.P.A. No. 148 of 1995 was filed by the Corporation against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated September 7, 1994 in C.M.A. No. 933 of 1986 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Addition...
Tag this Judgment!