Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1977 Page 3 of about 23 results (0.026 seconds)

Apr 20 1977 (HC)

Nagarajan Vs. the Executive Officer, Sri Swaminathaswamy Devasthanam, ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-20-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Mad30

ramaprasada rao, offg. c.j.1. the appellant, who lost before mohan j., in a writ petition filed by him for the issuance of a writ of certiorari and for quashing the order passed by the third respondent in the writ petition, who in turn confirmed the order of the secondrespondent, has filed this appeal. the facts have been summarised by mohan, j., and it is unnecessary for us to restate them. but for purposes of continuity we extract them:'an extent of 4-93 standard acres in adanur village, papanasam taluk, thanjavur district, which were belonging to the first respondent were leased to one kaliyaperumal. the said kaliyaperumal died in the year 1972. the writ petitioner being the brother of the deceased kaliyaperumal was said to be cultivating the lands for some time. the special deputy collector, tiruvarur, conducted an enquiry into the lease of the lands belonging to the temple and found that the writ petitioner was not cultivating the lands but one subramaniam was actually cultivating the lands.'the learned judge, however, did not countenance the arguments of the appellant on the ground that pragmatic rather than a pedantic approach to the problem is necessary. he was of the view that having regard to the purport and object of the tamil nadu public trusts act, 1961, the second respondent, who passed the order initially, and the third respondent, who confirmed it later, were or should be deemed to have acted within the limbs of the jurisdiction provided for and stated in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 1977 (HC)

Nagarajan Vs. the Executive Officer, Sri Swaminathaswamy Devasthanam a ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-20-1977

Reported in : (1977)2MLJ328

ordert. ramaprasada rao, officiating c.j.1. the appellant, who lost before mohan, j., in a writ petition filed by him for the issuance of a writ of certlorari and for quashing the order passed by the third respondent in the writ petition, who in turn confirmed the order of the second respondent, has filed this appeal. the facts have been summarised by mohan, j., and it is unnecessary for us to re-state it. but for purposes of continuity we extract them:an extent of 4.93 standard acres in adanur village, papanasam taluk, thanjavur district, which were belonging to the first respondent were leased out to one kaliyaperumal. the said kaliyaperumal died in the year 1972. the writ petitioner being the brother of the deceased kaliyaperumal was said to be cultivating the lands for some time. the special deputy collector, tiruvarur, conducted on enquiry into the lease of the lands belonging to the temple and found that the writ petitioner was not cultivating the lands but one subramaniam was actually cultivating the lands.the learned judge, however, did not countenance the arguments of the appellant on the ground that a pragmatic rather than a pedantic approach to the problem is necessary. he was of the view that having regard to the purport and object of the tamil nadu public trust act, 1961 the second respondent, who passed the order initially, and the third respondent, who confirmed it later, were or should be deemed to have acted within the limits of the jurisdiction provided for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1977 (HC)

B. Khushalchand Vs. Jt. Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of F ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-07-1977

Reported in : 1979CENCUS332

ordermohan, j.1. this writ petition coming on for hearing on thursday, the third day of november 1977 and on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, the order of the high court dated 2.5.1975 and made herein, and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order in no. 4496 of 1974, dated 23.9.76 on the file of the 1st respondent and comprised in the return of respondents herein to the writ made by the high court, and upon hearing the argument of mr. k. c. rajappa advocate for the petitioner, and of mr. t. chengalvarayan central government standing counsel on behalf of the respondents, the court made the followingorder:the short facts leading to this writ petition are as follows: on 7.1.1972, officers attached to the madras customs house searched a room in the premises no. 41, kalathi pillai street, madras-1, which was under the occupation of the petitioner, in execution of a search warrant no. 86/72 dated 7.4.1972. the search resulted in the recovery of two numbers of hitachi 3 band car radios and 144 nos. of gillette razor sets, all valued atrs. 2,040/-c.i.f. as the petitioner was not in possession of any documents or bill to prove the licit origin and legal acquisition of the aforesaid goods, which were notified goods under section 11-b of the customs act, 1962 (actlii of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the act) and since he had failed to intimate the customs authorities, his room as a place of storage of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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