Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-30-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)CTC241; (1999)3MLJ546
ORDER1. In all these cases, the issue involved is one and the same. The petitioners are dealers in various consumer goods, groceries and dairy products. They have been purchasing butter/ghee/flavoured milk and other products of the 3rd respondent sold under the brand name 'Aavin' from the 5th respondent who was the distributor for the concerned area. The petitioners have sold the said products giving discount to the public. On the basis that the petitioners were selling the products to the consumers at prices lower than the Maximum Retail Prices fixed for the products, the 5 the respondent refused to sell the dairy products of the 3rd respondent to the petitioners. So the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, their officers and agents to take action to ensure compliance with law by their distributors and wholesalers including the 5th respondent. 2. According to the petitioners, though the Maximum Retail P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-02-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)CTC247; (1999)3MLJ679
ORDER1. 1st Defendant in O.S.No. 1287 of 1999, on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. Plaintiff/1st respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from producing TV Film or Video film or regular movie in any language without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff in any manner and in any capacity whatsoever about late Kamaraj.3. In the plaint it is said that plaintiff is the grandson of perunthalaivar Kamaraj and legal heir also. During the last days of that great Leader, plaintiff was looking after him and was assisting him in his day-to-day affairs and personal matters, at Thirumalai Pillai Road House, T. Nagar, Chennai-17. Perunthalaivar Kamaraj was a bachelor and hence he adopted the plaintiff as his son. Plaintiff left his Medical College Studies and was helping Mr. Kamaraj. He also performed the last rites of that great Leader and also performed the death ceremony as per Hindu customs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-26-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC741
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1995 made in A.S.No. 249 of 1989 by the single Judge of the appellate forum of this Court allowing the above appeal preferred by the respondent herein against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1988 made in O.S.No. 4 of 1987 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal thereby dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein praying 'for the recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant, who is the appellant before us. 2. The respondent herein has filed the suit before the trial Court contending that on.7.4.1980 he purchased a building site and for the purpose of constructing the building, he entered into Ex.A.1 agreement deed dated 20.3.1995 with the appellant thereby agreeing, on certain terms and conditions, to construct a shop structure in an extent of 16' x 17' and to lease out the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-08-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC13a; (1999)3MLJ750
ORDER1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for either side in both the revision petitions, the revision petitions are taken up today for final disposal and they are disposed of.2. Heard Mr.K. Alagirisami senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the revision petitions, Mr.M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent in C.R.P.No. 1077 of 1999, Mr.K.V. Venkatapathi, Advocate General appearing for the 1st respondent in C.R.P.No. 1078 of 1999 and Mr.M.S. Ramesh appearing for the 3rd respondent the Returning Officer. Service of notice on other respondents is not complete. However, it is represented jointly that the revision itself could be disposed of, as it arises out of an interlocutory order passed pending the suit.3. C.R.P.No. 1077 of 1999 has been preferred against the order dated 23.3.1999 made in I.A.No. 411 of 1999 in O.S.No. 493 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli. In the said suit an injunction applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-20-1999
Reported in : (1999)2MLJ616
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Shanmugha Sadachara Servai, the petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 31 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif, Kovilpatti. He filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. After trial, the said suit was dismissed. Though he instructed his lawyer to file an appeal after getting the copies of the judgment and decree, the copy application was not filed in time. Therefore, he engaged some other Lawyer to whom he instructed to file an appeal. In the process of filing the appeal, there was a delay of 94 days. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 530 of 1991 to condone the said delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 in the enquiry conducted on this application. The reasons for causing the delay of 94 days were given by P. W. 1 in the deposition. He was also cross-examined. After consideration of the materials and submissions of the counsel for both the parties, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-19-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC323
ORDER1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the owners of the lands acquired by the respondents for the establishment of the industrial complex. They have filed these writ petitions, challenging the acquisition of their lands. Apart from the availability of the poramboke lands, the Government has decided to acquite an extent of 935.52.0 Hectares in Sriperumbudur 'C', Pondur 'A', Pondur 'C', Irungulam, Araneri, Mambakkam, Thirumangalam. Sirumangadu and Santhavellur villages of Sriperumbudur Taluk of Kancheepuram District to form an industrial complex in the area. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) addressed the Government for administrative sanction for the establishment of an industrial complex in the above area and also to acquire the private lands by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1984) (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') and also for the transfer of the poramboke lands....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-15-1999
Reported in : 2001ACJ1204; 1999CriLJ2348; 1999(2)CTC29
ORDER1. Dr. L. Prakash, seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No. 3711 of 1998 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., has approached this Court with this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The petitioner is arrayed as A3 in this case. The accusation contained in the charge sheet against Al to A3 is as follows:'On 24.5.1997 at about 12.00 hours at Padmini Nursing Home situated at Pachayappas College Hostel Road, Chennai. Dr. Parthasarathy (A1), Dr. Rajagopal (A2) and Dr. L. Prakash (A3) acted in a rash and negligent manner in conducting the operation on the person by name Jayakumar for his fractured injuries sustained on his right leg in a road accident, the first accused Dr. Parthasarathy being the Anaesthetist, the second accused Dr. Rajagopal and the third accused Dr.L. Prakash being in charge of the operation fixed for the patient, during which process the second accused abruptly left the operation theatre ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-30-1999
Reported in : (1999)2MLJ467
C. Shivappa, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated 2.6.1998, passed on O.A.Nos.182 and 183 of 1998 on the Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court, vacating the ex parte interim injunction granted on 16.4.1998.2. Original Application No. 182 of 1998 was filed for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent and others from use or otherwise dealing with the pharmaceutical preparations and substances under the trade mark 'SPASMO-FLEXON'. O.A.No. 183 of 1998 was for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent and others from passing-off the goods under the trade-mark 'SPASMO-FLEXON', on the ground that the same is identical or deceptively/ phonetically similar to the appellant's trade-mark 'SPASMO-PROXYVON'3. In the suit, the trial Judge by an order dated 16.4.1998 granted ad-interim injunction ex parte. Against the said order, the respondent herein filed Applications No. 1650 to 1654 of 1998 to vacate the ex parte order passed on O.A.N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-27-1999
Reported in : 1999(1)CTC594
1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.298 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur have come to this court complaining about the illegality of procedure adopted by the Lower Court.2. Petitioners have filed the suit for declaration that they are hereditary Poojaries and for consequential reliefs. Respondents had filed a suit against some third parties for the relief relating to settlement of accounts, etc.; and thesame is pending before this Court in S.A.1548 of 1995. In view of the pendency of second appeal before this Court, an application was filed by respondents to have the entire suit stayed under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also passed an order under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure staying all the proceedings.3. Thereafter, the same petitioners moved an application for injunction in the suit seeking for some urgent reliefs. I am not going into the question as to the relief sought for in that injunction application since the court refused to enterta...
Tag this Judgment!