Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-18-2002
Reported in : 2003(27)PTC343(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The applicants in O.A. No. 337 to 339 of 2001 are the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 265 of 2001. The applicants in Application No. 4803 of 2001 is defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, who have moved the application to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 11.4.2001 in O.A. No. 339 of 2001. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents or anyone claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered patent bearing No. 01301264 by using the offending patents either using the trade mark 'LOVATO' and 'LOVATO AUTOGAS' or the trade mark RAAJAN AUTO GAS or any other mark or marks which are in any way identical with or colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered patent, bearing the trade mark 'LOVATO' AND 'LOVATO AUTOGAS', either by manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or in any man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR772]; (2002)1MLJ720
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed against the order passedby the Industrial Tribunal in Industrial Dispute No.90 of1989. The reference for adjudication is 'whether the demandfor payment of bonus to the workers at 8.33% for the years1986-87 is justified; if not, to what relief they areentitled' and also for another issue. The other issue is notrelevant for the present and hence it is not extracted. 2. The facts are as follows: The Christian MedicalHospital was founded about 90 years ago; Subsequently, medicalcollege was stated. There are 3500 employees of variouscategories in the hospital. The employees of the ChristianMedical College (hereinafter referred to as 'CMC'), claimedthat the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act applies tothem. The management contends that the Payment of Bonus Acthas no application for C.M.C. Hospital as it is exemptedunder subclauses (b) and (c) of Section Section 32(v) of theAct. 3.The employees' contention is that the hospitalmanufactures...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-06-2002
Reported in : (2002)3MLJ513
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.24625, 24696, 25014 and 25015 of 2002, who are probono public have challenged the correctness of the action of the Government in discontinuing the B.L. Degree Course both three years and five years in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai, and have sought for a direction to the Government to continue the same, as it was done earlier.2. The petitioner in W.P.No.25632/2002, a practicing advocate and social worker has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to stop all processes relating to the notification given on or about 6.7.2002, announcing about the new five-year B.A.,B.L. ( Hons.) Course, without providing for age and marks relaxations for Most Backward Class and Backward Class students.3. Originally, there was only one Law College at Chennai, for the entire Madras State, called Government Law College, Chennai. Taking into consideration the demand for law course, the Government wanted to have Law Col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Mad435; (2002)2MLJ506
ORDERK.S. Sampath, J.1. The question for consideration in both these matters is whether the High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial matters irrespective of whether the husband and wife reside at Madras or last resided together at Madras or not?2. As pointed out in Thelma Agnes Kershaw v. Archibald Cyril Kershaw, AIR 1930 Lah 916, in cases under the Divorce Act, the question of jurisdiction is of paramount importance and does not fall to be determined purely on allocation of the onus of proof. In these cases, it is the duty of the Court, apart from any objection that might have been taken by one or other of the parties, to enquire into and set out in the judgment, facts which show clearly that it possesses jurisdiction to pronounce a decree' for dissolution of marriage.3. Apart from the preamble, the sections relevant in the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (now the Divorce Act) are Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(4), 4. 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 45. We have also to advert ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-03-2002
Reported in : (2002)2MLJ150
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction is raised in this appeal and that issue as well as other issues that arise will be dealt with. 2. According to the respondent / plaintiff, the suit property belonged to one Ponnurangam Pillai who died in the year 1952 leaving behind three sons and the wife of a predeceased son. He executed a will on 29.8.1940, bequeathing his properties to his wife and the four persons above named. The beneficiaries effected a partition amongst themselves on 17.5.1979. The suit property is located in Cadastre Nos.159 and 159 Bis. This share was allotted to Pandurangam, Ponnurangam's son. On 19.2.1981, the respondent purchased the property from Pandurangam. The suit property in which there are coconut groves, was orally leased out to one Dhanusu Pillai and his sons. These lessees subleased the property to a number of tenants, one of whom was the appellant's father Muruga Gramany alias Murugesa Gramany. The arrangement commenced in the ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-30-2002
Reported in : [2003]113CompCas487(Mad); (2002)2MLJ444
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. This revision has been preferred under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr. Y.K. Rajagopal, in the memo dated 25.9.2001 filed by the petitioner in Arbitration Case R.R/SF/1/2001 dated 21.12.2001.2. The respondent has entered appearance through M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates.3. It is the main contention of the respondent that apart from the merits, no revision is maintainable under Article 227 of The Constitution in respect of an order passed by the Arbitrator on a memo and that too in respect of a non statutory arbitration. The Arbitrator was appointed in terms of the Arbitration Clause contained in the Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent.4. The factual matrix could be summarised briefly: The petitioner and the respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 25.1.1996. As disputes have arisen, the respondent appointed Mr. Y.K. Rajagopal as the sole arbitra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-29-2002
Reported in : 2003(26)PTC408(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The applicant filed an application to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from infringing the applicant's copyright in any manner or by representing to any third parties, the efficacy of their products as partof the process in the drawings, diagrams and literature annexed as document No. 1 in the plaint.2. The case in brief is as follows :- The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration , that he is the owner of the copy right in the drawings, schematic diagrams and literature mentioned in document No. 1. It is used to describe his pilfer-proof process, for securing transportation of liquid petroleum cargo in trucks and for a consequential injunction. The applicant seeks to protect his intellectual property rights in the system and methodology developed by him, as evidenced by the diagrams and drawings. The respondent/defendant is now making hectic canvassing for selling its locks as part of the Pilfer Proof Locking Syste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-2002
Reported in : 2002(24)PTC701(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petition filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to stay the operation of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1 of 1999 dated 19.10.2001 on the file of the III Additional District Judge of Krishnagiri pending disposal of this appeal.2. The case in brief is as follows :- The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/appellant from using the trade mark BECEF or any other mark as may be identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark BICEF either by manufacturing, selling or in any manner advertising the same. They also sought for a direction to surrender the labels, literatures, packaging materials and dies, etc. They moved an application for interim injunction on 12.03.1999 and it was dismissed on 22.11.1999. They have not filed any appeal against the order of dismissal. However, ultimately the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner/appellant has been m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-14-2002
Reported in : (2002)2MLJ799
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. At issue, is the constitutionality of revision of power tariff by the State of Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board prepares Budget estimates every year and they are placed before the State Legislature. For the year 2001 - 2002 too, such Budget estimate was prepared and was placed before the State Legislature. The revenue gap, after compiling, between the receipts and expenditure, was arrived at Rs.2,747.59 Crores. Responding to the same, the Government had issued G.O. Ms.No.95, dated 28.11.2001 revising power tariff but on representation being made, the escalation in power tariff was slightly reduced by later G.O. Ms. No.96, dated 5.12.2001, making the said modification applicable only to domestic consumers. G.O. Ms. No.95 became effective from 1.12.2001 as modified by G.O. Ms. No.96. The above three writ petitions are pro bono publico. First in order is W.P. No.23807 of 2001 followed by W.P. Nos.25219 and 25220 of 2001. While the power to enhance t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-26-2002
Reported in : 2003(26)PTC21(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J.1. This is an application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent and its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers and representatives from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising or dealing directly or indirectly in medicinal preparations under the trade mark PIOZED or any other trade mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the trade mark PIOZ of the applicant so as to pass off the respondent's preparations as and for the preparations of the applicant or in any other manner whatsoever connected with the applicant till the disposal of the suit.2. The applicant is the plaintiff and has filed the suit against the respondent, who is the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from passing off their medicinal preparations under the trade...
Tag this Judgment!