Court : Chennai
Reported in : 33Ind.Cas.906
John Wallis, C.J.1. The first question in this appeal is, whether a suit for damages for cutting and carrying away trees is a suit for land or other immoveable property within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as held by Sankaran Nair, J., as, if so, the suit was properly dismissed as the land on which the trees were growing was situated outside the jurisdiction. I do not think the question whether a decision involving the question of title in such a suit would be res judicata in a subsequent suit for the land, is very relevant to an inquiry what is included in the words suit for land or other immoveable property,' and assuming that a suit for cutting and carrying away trees does not come within these words, a decision in such a suit on a question of title by a Court other than the Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated would not in my opinion under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure be res judicata in a subsequent suit in the proper Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :18. 11/2013 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH A.No.4029 of 2013 in C.S.No.474 of 2013 K.MADHAVAN NAIDU S/O. M.K.RAJAGOPAL NAIDU MRS. K.SHAKILA K.RITHISH ALL ARE RESIDING AT PLOT NO.16/A-2 AKSHAYA COLONY, FIRST AVENUE, MOGAPPAIR CHENNAI50MRS. K.RADHADEVI K.RAMESH MS. K.RAMYA .. PETITIONERS VS. MRS. RAJINI BALAKRISHNAN NO.83, MAYOR RAMANATHAN ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI31MRS. V.REVATHI NALLUR KAMARAPALAYAM VILLAGE, PONNERI TALUK, THIRUVALLUR DT MRS. RAMA GUNASEKARAN NO.HIG102 NEW ASTC HUDCO HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI DT .... RESPONDENTS For petitioner : Mr.R.THIAGARAJAN For 1st respondent : Mr.T.V.KRISHNAMACHARI ORDER: R.SUBBIAH, J The present application has been filed to pass an order revoking the leave granted in Application No.2901 of 2013 in C.S.Diary No.193113 of 2013 dated 10.7.2013 and dismiss the suit.2. For the sake of convenience, the applicants are referred to as the defendants and the respondents are referred to as the plaintiffs.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Both the petitioners in this writ petition are registered societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and they are providing support to people living with HIV/AIDS (herein after referred to as 'PLHIV'). The petitioners try to lend support to PLHIV in critical areas such as access to medicine and treatment and also for removal of discrimination facing PLHIV in Indian society. Members of the petitioner organizations are citizens of India.2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, the 4th respondent herein, is a pharmaceutical company registered in Switzerland having its office at 124, Grenzacherstrasse CH 4200, Basle, Switzerland. It filed a Patent Application titled '-(2-Amino-1, 6-Dihydro-6-oxopurin- 9-yl)-methoxy-1,3-propanediol Derivative', which was allocated No. 959/MAS/1995, for a patent relating to Valganciclovir, which is a drug used to treat CMC retinitis. The 4th respondent's Patent Application No. 959/MAS/1995 was filed on 27.07.1995, and the 2nd res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)4MLJ1153
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. In the first writ petition, Novartis - a foreign company represented by it's Indian Power of Attorney holder, is the writ petitioner. In the second writ petition, Novartis India represented by it's power agent is the writ petitioner. The respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, amended by Patents (Amendment) Act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. However, in the first writ petition there was an additional prayer in addition to the relief asked for. The additional prayer was to direct the second respondent in that writ petition namely, the Controller General of Patents and Designs, to allow the patent application bearing No. 1602/NAS/98 filed by the petitioner seeking patent. However at a later stage, during the pendency of the writ petitions, M.P. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1935Mad528; 158Ind.Cas.662
Beasley, C.J.1. Before dealing with the first point to be considered by this Full Bench, I propose to set out some of the facts of this case. At 1-34 A.M., on January 13, of this year, the Parcels Express train which left the Egmore Station at Madras at 10-10 P.M., arrived at Karunguzhi Station on the South Indian Railway. There it delivered six parcels. Five of these were handed over to the respective owners on production by them of the tickets relating to them at about 7 o'clock on the same morning. The sixth remained undelivered as no one claimed it.2. It is described by T.S. Narayanaswami Ayyar (P.W. No. 28), the Assistant Station Master at Karunguzhi to whom all the parcels were delivered, as a bed parcel packed in a date leaf mat. The receipt of this parcel and the others was acknowledged by this witness in Ex. U. In order that parcels Could be carried by that train as luggage it is necessary for the senders to have passenger tickets and the number of each passenger ticket is ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. Whether the right to begin as provided under Rule 1 and 2 of Order XVIII of Civil Procedure Code is really a right or is in the nature of a legal obligation of the plaintiff to produce his evidence at the first instance is the substantial question that arises for consideration in these original side appeals.2.These appeals are directed against the Order dated 10 March 2010 in C.S.No.979 and C.S.No.1111/2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge directed the appellant being the defendant in C.S.No.979/2007 and the plaintiff in the subsequent suit, to start with the letting in of evidence.3.The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant in accordance with their status before the trial Court in the suit in C.S.No.979/2007.The facts :-First suit :-4.The suit in C.S.No.979/2007 was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant praying for the following reliefs :-"(a) Declaring that the threats held out by the defendant on September 1 and 3, 2007 that the plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1994)1MLJ78
Somasundaram, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed against the Order dated 8.4.1993 made in Contempt Application No. 507 of 1992 filed by the first respondent herein, directing respondents 2 to 4 herein to permit the first respondent herein to quarry sand in Amaravathi river for a period of 3 1/2 months from 1.5.1993.2. In the Sub Application No. 133 of 1992 in Contempt Application No. 507 of 1992, the appellant along with 5 others was sought to be impleaded as respondents 4 to 9 in Contempt Application No. 507 of 1992. However, Sub-Application 133 of 1992 was not pressed by the first respondent herein in the course of the proceedings in Contempt Application No. 507 of 1992 and the parties proposed to be impleaded as respondents 4 to 9 were given up. The appellant got leave of this Court to file this L.P.A. in C.M.P. No. 8488 of 1993.3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following: The first respondent herein was granted lease of lands in the Amaravathi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1925Mad281; 85Ind.Cas.1016; (1924)47MLJ876
Krishnan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to a Bench by Coleridge, J. as he considered that the ruling of Phillips, J., in Sankunni v. Ikkora Kirtti (1919) MWN 570 on which the judgment of the District Munsif is based required re-consideration.2. The suit refers to a chit fund carried on by the defendant. There were 500 subscribers each paying a rupee a month. The chit was to last for 50 months during which period two prizes were to be drawn by lot of Rs. 25 each among the subscribers every month. Any subscriber who happened to win a prize was paid Rs. 25 at once and was thereafter to pay only a subscription of eight annas a month. If he won a second prize he would be paid Rs. 25 more and his subscription ceased and his name would no longer be included in drawing the prizes. At the end of the 50th month all the subscribers who had won no prizes were to be paid back the whole of the money they subscribed, namely Rs. 50 each; the single prize winners were similarly to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)IMLJ465
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. When the L.P.A. came up for hearing before this Court on March 8, 1995, Writ Petition No. 11680 of 1993 was directed to be posted along with L.P.A. Accordingly, both the matters are posted together and the learned counsel appearing on both sides in both the matters are heard. 2. As the decision in the writ petition will have a bearing on the L.P.A., we first take up the writ petition for consideration. 3. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Madras-17 (first respondent) bearing R.C. No. 2057/92/C-4, dated February 25, 1993 and also the order dated April 28, 1993 passed by the Special Officer. The Kancheepuram Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Kanchecpuram (second respondent), insofar as they relate to the denial of backwages. 4. The first respondent has passed the aforesaid impugned order in the purported, exercise of his powers under Sec. 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative-Societies Act, 1983 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1969)1MLJ366
K.S. Ramamurthi, 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 writting a separate judgment is (as Lord Campbell observed in Piers v. Piers 11 House of Lord Cases 9 Eng. Rep. 1118 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 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 (0 CO 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)...
Tag this Judgment!