Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1964 Page 3 of about 29 results (0.052 seconds)

Nov 06 1964 (HC)

R.V.N. Chandrasekara Chetty Vs. Kakumani Adikesavalu Chettys Charities

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-06-1964

Reported in : AIR1966Mad14

..... the benefit of the landlord than to the public advantage or benefit, and that the landlord's motive for getting a higher rent by making the new construction was so patent, and obvious that the courts below should have held that the requirement was not reasonable. the learned judges observed : 'the court in determining the reasonableness of requirement for purposes of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1964 (HC)

In Re : S.R. Ramalingam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-01-1964

Reported in : 1965CriLJ311

..... witness before the court, but also one where such evidence was given by means of an affidavit an appeal was filed against that order under clause 15 at the letters patent but the same was dismissed in limine on the ground that no appeal could lie against an order refusing to grant review of a judgment.4. pursuant to the directions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1964 (HC)

Duraiswamy Reddiar and ors. Vs. Chidambara Reddiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-24-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad348

(1) the point that falls to be decided in this appeal filed against the judgement of venkataraman, j, lies in a narrow compass. the appellant who was the defendant in the trial court is the owner of s. f. nos. 132/2, 132/3 and 132/5 in the village of elandalaipatti. just to the south of s. f. no. 132/5 there is government waster land, s. f. no. 132/6 in which there is a well measuring about 8 cents. adjacent to the well on the southern side is the respondent's nanja lands s. f. no. 216/1. there is unimpeachable evidence in the case to show that the respondent had been taking water from this well to irrigate his lands and that there are in existence permanent structures installed by him, on the well for the purpose. documentary evidence in the case also shows that the predecessors in title of the respondents had form the year 1907 been dealing with the well as their own property. while so, in august 1953, the appellants tried to take water from this well to their lands lying on the north. the respondent obstructed and immediately followed up such obstruction, with suit which has given rise to this appeal wherein he prayed for a declaration of his title to the well and for an injunction restraining the appellants from using the well.(2) the learned district munsif on a careful consideration of the evidence in the case held that neither of the parties has any title to the well in question. but he had no hesitation to accept the respondent's case that he had been in possession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1964 (HC)

J. Mohammad Hanifa Vs. Tahsildar, Thiruthuraipoondi, Tanjore Dt. and o ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-30-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad78; (1963)2MLJ300

1. the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal against the judgment of srinivasan j. is whether the meeting held for the purpose for passing a "no confidence" motion against the president of kodinkadr panchayat at a place different form the office of the panchayat would by reason of that circumstance alone, be invalid. the appellant was the president of the said panchayat. certain of its members tabled a motion expressing want of confidence in notice under s. 152 of the panchayats act fixed the village temple as the venue of the meeting for the purpose. it is not disputed that the panchayat has got its own office. the meeting of the members of the panchayat was, however, not held there but at the temple. at the meeting eight out of nine members of the panchayat were present and the appellant the president of the panchayat, was also one among the present. the meeting duly passed the resolution expressing want of confidence in the president. the latter applied to this court under art. 226 of the constitution to quash the resolution and the notification removing him from the office of the president, on the ground that the meeting at which the resolution was passed was illegal inasmuch as it was held at a place different form the office of the panchayat.(2) section 152(4) of the act which deals with the place of meeting states that"the tahsildar shall after the expiry of the period of notice issued under sub-section (3) convene a meeting for ht e consideration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1964 (HC)

C.M. Sivaram Vs. V.S. Jayaram Mudaliar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-16-1964

Reported in : AIR1966Mad297

(1) the defendant in the suit o.s. 259 of 1956, on the file of the city civil court, madras, is the appellant before us. the said suit was filed by the respondent to recover a sum of rs. 6600 as assignee of two hundies, exts. a-1 and a-2, (which are now admitted to be promissory notes), executed by the appellant for rs. 4000 and rs. 1000 on 6-2-1952 in favour of one rukmaniammal. of the several pleas raised by the defendant the two pleas that were pressed before us are: (1) the amounts mentioned in the hundies are payable at a specified place, madras and as there was no presentment of the promissory notes to the defendant for payment, the plaintiff has no right to maintain the suit: (2) the promissory notes were not supported by consideration, and that the defendant signed two blank, hundi forms and left the same with one t. s. shanmugham, the husband of rukmaniammal aforesaid, with a view to enable shanmugham to raise money thereon, that the defendant's signature was obtained only by way of additional security and that the defendant did not have the benefit of the borrowing.(2) the learned city civil judge held that the assignment of the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff was only for purposes of collection, and that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder in due course. on the merits he held that the plea of the defendant that he signed blank hundies was a false one, that the promissory notes were fully supported by consideration, and that sum of rs. 5000 was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1964 (HC)

The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. L.S. Ramakrishna Gowder

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-31-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad318

s. ramachandra iyer, c.j. (1) the appellant secured from the government a considerable extent of vacant land measuring about 420 acres in madukkarai village in coimbatore district under a lease for mining purposes. in that area there were several survey numbers, of which we are concerned for the present only with s. no. 950/1 measuring an extent of 60 acres. just south of it, is s. no. 961/5. in the first instance the term of the lease was 30 years from the year 1934 but this period has not been extended by a further period of 20 years. the respondent purchased one acre from out of s. no. 961/5 from its owner sometime during the year 1950. the respondent had to store chinese crackers in which he had business and for that purpose he built on the land in the year 1950 a magazine, watchman's quarters, etc. the work was commenced that year and was completed in the following year, the respondent having spent nearly rs. 17000. it is stated that the building put up would not be worth twice the amount spent. it is found that by putting up the buildings he had occupied an extent of 79 cents of land in s. no. 950/1 which is government's property and in respect of which a mining lease in favour of the appellant subsists. the respondent did not perhaps know at that time that he was trespassing upon government property. there was every reason for it.the land covered by s. no. 950/1 was fenced and there were boundary stones planted. both the fence and the boundary stones were outside the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1964 (HC)

Deivasenathipathi Pillai Vs. Visalakshi Achi and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-01-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad346; (1965)1MLJ131

(1) this appeal from the judgment of anantnarayanan j. relates to a claim to the estate left by one balakrishna pillai, a successful lawyer who was practising at ariyalur in tiruchirapalli dt. he died on 6-4-1893, leaving behind him his two windows, meenakshi achi and sornathachi. by the latter, he had a daughter visalakshi achi who was a child aged 3 years at the time of his death. visalakshi came of age and was married but no issue resulted from that marriage. meenakshi, of the windows, died about the year 1917. visalakshi, the first respondent became insane and in o. p. 69 of 1944, on the file of the district court, tiruchirapalli, the second respondent to this appeal was appointed as her guardian. the appellant claims that he had been adopted by swarnathachi on 14-9-42, in pursuance of an authority given to her by her husband. the adoption is evidenced by a document, ex a. l, which bears the same date as the adoption. within a period of four months thereform, on 29-12-1942, swarnathachi executed a deed, ex. b. 1, cancelling the adoption. an adoption once lawfully made effects a change of status and it will not thereafter be open to adoptive parent to cancel it. but the deed of cancellation, ex b. 1, is valuable in the instant case, to show the circumstances under which the adoption was made and is also a pointer to the subsequent conduct of the parties. while the adoption deed states that balakrishna pillai had given each one of his two windows permission to adopt a son .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1964 (HC)

M. Chettiappan and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, and Anot ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-27-1964

Reported in : [1964]54ITR293(Mad)

..... is no foundation for the view that civil and criminal jurisdiction exhaust the list of jurisdiction that are conferred upon the high court by the constitution and under the letters patent. there can be a proceeding which is neither civil not criminal and whether a particular writ application is in the nature of a civil proceeding or criminal proceeding or other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 1964 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) by the Dept. of Company, Law Administration, Mini ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-03-1964

Reported in : AIR1964Mad398

ordervenkatadri, j.1. this is a revision petition preferred by the union of india represented by the department of company law administration, ministry of commerce and industry, under section 22-a(2) of the chartered accountants act, 1949. the petition is against the order passed by the council of the institute of chartered accountants of india, new delhi, that the first respondent herein was not guilty of any professional or other misconduct under section 21 of take chartered accountants act of 1949. in doing so, the council of the institute dissented from the finding of the disciplinary committee that the first respondent was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as an auditor.2. the first respondent is a chartered accountant. in the course of audit of the little's oriental balm and pharmaceuticals ltd., madras, he checked, verified and approved the balance-sheet of the company as on 31-12-1951 the payment of remuneration to messrs. oakley bowden and co., as managing agents of the little's oriental balm and pharmaceuticals ltd. alter a period of six years, the registrar of companies, madras, sent a letter calling upon him to explain the failure on his part to detect the continuance in office of messrs. oakley bowden and co. ltd., as managing agents of mess is little's oriental balm and pharmaceuticals ltd. beyond the stipulated period without any further agreement and also the failure to point out to the shareholders the irregularity in regard to the payment of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //