Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ228
Srinivasan, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent, as to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 192 of 1974 and in execution of the same, brought the properties to sale. Sale was held which was sought to be set aside by the appellant herein by an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Section 151 of the Code. The application was dismissed by the Executing Court and on appeal in C.M.A. No. 775 of 1986, a single Judge of this Court affirmed the order of the Executing Court, it is against the said order, the present L.P. Appeal has been filed.3. An objection is raised by the respondent that the C.M.A. filed in this Court was under Section 104, read with Order 43, Rule 1(j) of the Code and therefore, by virtue of the provision of Section 104(2) of the Code, no further appeal will lie from an order passed in the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)1MLJ524
Srinivasan, J.1. These appeals arise out of common judgment in O.P. Nos. 801 and 802 of 1992 and Application Numbers 5547 and 5548 of 1992, on the file of the Original Side. The learned single Judge has dismissed the original petitions and consequently held that the first respondent before him in each of the original petitions was entitled to a decree in terms of the awards passed by the second respondent/ arbitrator. Thus, the two applications before him were ordered by him.2. The facts are shortly thus: Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, which is hereinafter referred to as the appellant, invited tenders for supply of rice in May, 1989. The first respondent in O.S.A. Nos. 284 and 287 of 1994, which will be hereinafter referred to as the first respondent, and the first respondent in O.S.A. Nos. 285 and 286 of 1994, which will be hereinafter referred to as the second respondent, submitted the tenders. After negotiations, they entered into agreements on 16.6.1989 and on 23.6....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : LC2010(1)37
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. Both applications were filed by the applicant/plaintiff.2. The first application is for the grant of an interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the work titled 'FLYGUARD' in respect of the invention of the plaintiff under the name/title 'e-Passport(Smartcard)' and also as 'TCS e-Passport Solution' or such other name or title which are in any manner identical and similar with the copyright in the work on the plaintiff's invention/work 'FLYGUARD'.3. The second application is for an identical prayer for infringing of the Patent for the invention made by the applicant/plaintiff.4. The suit was filed by the applicant/plaintiff for the very same prayers and also to direct the surrender to the plaintiff the materials accumulated by the defendants in this regard and for a further direction to render true and faithful accounts of profits earned by the defendants.5. It is claimed by the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN AND THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI W.A.(Md.No.587 of 2014 W.A.(Md.Nos.587, 605, 606 & 1024 of 2014 & M.P.(Md.Nos.2, 2, 2 and 2 of 2014 & W.P.(Md.No.12689 of 2014 W.A.(Md.No.587 of 2014:- 1.The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai. 3.The District Social Welfare Officer, Karur. 4.Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements).Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai ?. 600 018 ..Appellants versus M.Palanikani ..Respondent PRAYER : Writ appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patents Act to set aside the order dated 27.06.2012, passed in W.P.(Md.No.8287 of 2011. W.A.(Md.No.605 of 2014:- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Principal Secretary, Social Wel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1985Mad130
Padmanabhan, J. 1. The following quetion has been referred for the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court by Kader J. -'Whether S. 80 of the Railways Act as amended excludes the operation of S. 20 of the Civil P.C.- and Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent?'The question has arisen for consideration in the following circumstances. The first plaintiff is a company incorporated Linder the Companies Act, having the registered office at Bangalore and carrying on business at Kalarnassery, Ernakulam. The second plaintiff is a registered society carrying qn business at P.W. Satsung Bihar. The third plaintiff is the insurer who has settled the claims of the second plaintiff and got subrogated to the rights, having its registered office at Madras. A consignment of one case containing HNIT printing machine Letter Press Atesa/RTE 1052, was entrusted by the first plaintiff to the first defendant Southern Railway administration at Cochin Harbour terminus for being delivered to the second plaintiff at Bai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC261; (1997)IIMLJ625
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In the above said Letters Patent Appeals, the following question was referred for decision:'Whether Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the order of a learned single Judge of the High Court passed in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal?'2. The necessary facts leading to the reference of the abovesaid question are as follows: One Durairajan and his son D. Rajkumar filed a scheme suit in O.S.No. 684 of 1995 on the file of Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, to frame a scheme for the administration of a trust known as G.R. Govindarajulu & Sons Charities. The trust was created by a trust deed dated 15.9.1958. In the said scheme suit, LA. No. 944 of 1995 was filed praying for an interim injunction restraining D. Srinivasan from acting as a trustee. LA. No. 943 of 1995 was filed praying for an interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from re-constituting and replacing or altering the Trust Board without the sanction of the Court. Interim injunction in both the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad79; [1953]23CompCas68(Mad); (1952)2MLJ646
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Order passed by this Court in Refd. Case No. 56 of 1951. Messrs. M.S. Krishnswami and Jagannathan are a firm of Chartered Accountants and they were the auditors of a company called the Amalgamated Coffee Estates Ltd., during the years 19-10-1947 and 1948. On 5-7-1050 Messrs. Devar and Sons Ltd. preferred a complaint to the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants that the auditors; had passed balance sheets which "did not exhibit a true and correct view of the state of affairs of the company and were calculated to mislead whomsoever it concerned, more espceially the debenture holders of the company."The complainants held considerable debentures in the company. On receipt of the complaint, the Council obtained the explanation of the petitioner who was the partner concerned with the balance sheets and sent the matter to the Disciplinary. Committee for enquiry. The Committee took evidence and recorded ...
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 : (1918)35MLJ110
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, an appeal from the award of the District Court of Coimbatore was heard by a Bench consisting of Ayling and Sadasiva Iyer, JJ. Both the learned Judges differed, generally speaking, from the Land Acquisition Judge and among themselves on some questions relating to the principle on which the value of the property was to be assessed. The total amount claimed by the owner, was 8 lakhs. The land acquisition judge confirming the valuation of the Collector made ah award of one lakh and seventy two thousand rupees in round figures. Ayling, J. on the basis on which he proceeded held that the amount of the award should be enhanced by Rs. 7,000 and Sadasiva Aiyar, J. on the method of valuation adopted by him was for awarding on the whole an additional sum of about Rs. 56,000. We understand that a question was then raised before the learned judges as to what should be the order of the High Court under such circumstances. The learned Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1918)ILR41Mad943
Abdur Rahim, J.1. Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, an appeal from the award of the District Court of Coimbatore was heard by a Bench consisting of Ayling and Sadasiva Ayyar, JJ., Both the learned Judges differed, generally speaking, from the Land Acquisition Judge and among themselves on some questions relating to the principle on which the value of the property was to be assessed. The total amount claimed by the owner was eight lakhs. The Land Acquisition Judge, confirming the valuation of the Collector, made an award of one lakh and seventy-two thousand rupees in round figures. Ayling, J., on the basis on which he proceeded held that the amount of the award should be enhanced by Rs. 7,000 and Sadasiva Ayyar, J., on the method of valuation adopted by him was for awarding on the whole an additional sum of about Us. 56,000. We understand that a question was then raised before the learned Judges as to what should be the order of the High Court under such circumstances. The l...
Tag this Judgment!