Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-13-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Mad243
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned District Judge, 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 defences 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 contest betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-13-1966
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
Decided on : Jul-01-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Mad1
1. The issue that has been referred to this Full Bench can be very simply stated: It is, whether an order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis by a single Judge of the High Court, is a judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? Even in this restricted form, the issue involves a conflict of the case law in this Court. In M.R. Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Rarichan, ILR 59 Mad 656 = (AIR 1936 Mad 387), a Division Bench of Beasley C. J. and Stodart J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court excusing the delay in the filing of a pauper appeal and admitting the appeal, is not a 'judgment' which can be the subject of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In P. baba Sah v. Purushottama Sah 47 Mad LJ 932 = (AIR 1925 Mad 167), Spencer C. J. and Srinivasa Aiyangar J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma paperis amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-01-1966
Reported in : (1967)2MLJ1
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The issue that has been referred to this Full Bench can be very simply stated: It is, whether an order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis by a single Judge of the High Court, is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? Even in this restricted form the issue involves a conflict of the case-law in this Court. In M.R. Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Rarichan : (1936)70MLJ306 , a Division Bench of Beasley, C.J., and Stodart, J., held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court excusing the delay in the filing of a pauper appeal and admitting the appeal, is not a 'judgment' which can be the subject of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In P. Baba Sah v. V M Purushothama Sah : (1924)47MLJ932 , Spencer, O.C.J. and Srinivasa Ayyangar, J., held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Mad215
1. These set of suits are by the Pilot Pen Co. (India) Private Ltd., against the several defendants for a permanent injunction restraining them from using the type of clip of fountain pens imitating the plaintiff's design registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act on 28-9-1959 and for accounts of the profits they have made by the sale of their pens with infringing type of clips. The original petitions by the defendants in each of these suits is for the cancellation of the registration by a direction to the Controlled General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Calcutta to remove the entry of the said registration from the register.(2) The suits and petitions were tried together and since the points arising in the suits and petitions are common, I propose to dispose them of by a common judgment.(3) The plaintiff, Pilot Pen Co., claims to have absolute copy right in a new and original design in respect of fountain pen clips, having registered their design under No. 101410 dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1966
Reported in : (1971)1MLJ127
ORDERK.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The plaintiffs have instituted this proceeding for the construction of the will of the late Narayana Guruviah Chetty, dated 12th October, 1915, marked as Exhibit P-1, by which amongst other things the testator had created certain religious and charitable endowments, and the point on which the decision of this Court is sought relates to the question whether house and ground bearing Municipal door No. 133, Audiappa Naicken Street (more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint) still forms part of the trust estate as being covered by the terms of the will.2. Late Narayana Guruviah Chetty amassed large properties as his self-acquisitions by his own exertions and the trade that he was carrying on. His wife was one Narayana Ethirajamma and they had no issues. Guruviah Chetty had adopted a son who predeceased the adoptive father, leaving a widow. The will left behind by Guruviah Chetty was a detailed and an elaborate one prepared under the instructions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-07-1966
Reported in : AIR1968Mad171
(1) The above cases have been directed by the learned Chief Justice to be posted before this Full Bench as Kailasam, J. and Venkatadri, J. (sitting singly) before whom these cases came, took the view that there is a conflict between two Full Bench decisions of this Court Chittayya v. Secretary of State. ILR 55 Mad 453: (AIR 1932 Mad 377) (FB) and Nagarathnammal v. Ibrahim Sahib, (FB).(2) W. P. 1027 of 63 arises out of proceedings under the Madras Hereditary Village Officers Act, Madras Act III of 1895. The question raised is whether the District Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to modify the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the course of the Disciplinary proceedings against a village headman W.P. Nos. 1225 of 63 and 424 of 64 arises out of proceedings under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, Act II of 1864 and the question raised is whether after the confirmation of a revenue sale by the Deputy Collector the District Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to set it aside unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-20-1966
Reported in : (1966)2MLJ68
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. W.P. No. 1124 of 1963 comes before us on a Reference made by one of us (K. Srinivasan, J.). It was a proceeding in Prohibition, of Messrs. Raval & Company (petitioners), seeking to restrain the respondents, including the Chief Rent Controller, Madras (fourth respondent), from prosecuting or proceeding with a petition for the fixation of fair rent, under the Madras Rent Control Acts. Connected with this are two other proceedings, namely, C.R.P. No. 1816 of 1963 and Application No. 2443 of 1964 in C. S. No. 163 of 1962, in which certain closely inter-linked questions are involved. Our learned brother (Srinivasan, J.) felt the difficulty that the catena of decisions of this Court, as far as the Madras Rent Control Acts are concerned, had been only in the consistent directions that these Acts did purport to interfere with contractual tenancies, both as regards the fixation1 of fair rents and as regards the respective rights of landlords and tenants, in the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-20-1966
Reported in : AIR1967Mad57; (1966)2MLJ63
(1) W.P. No. 1124 of 1963 comes before us on a reference made by one of us(srinivasan, J). It was a proceeding in prohibition by Messrs Raval and Co. (petitioners), seeking to restrain the respondents, including the Chief Rent Controller, Madras(4th respondent) from prosecuting or proceeding with a petition for the fixation of fair rent, under the Madras Rent Control Acts. Connected with this are two other proceedings, namely, C.R.P. 1816 of 1963 and Appn. No. 2443 of 1963 in C.S. 163 of 1962, in which certain clearly inter-linked question are involved. Our learned brother(Srinivasan, J.) felt the difficulty that the catena of decisions of this court as far as the Madras Rent Control Acts are concerned, has been only in the consistent directions that these Acts did purport to interfere with contractual tenancies both as regards the fixation of fair rents and as regards the respective rights of landlords and tenants, in the matter of eviction and the grounds for eviction; while certain...
Tag this Judgment!