Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: chennai Year: 1958 Page 3 of about 34 results (0.026 seconds)

Jul 14 1958 (HC)

Noor Saheb and anr. Vs. S.A. Mohammad Ghouse

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-14-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad105; (1958)IIMLJ612

1. the only question in this appeal against the judgment of somasundaram j. in c.c.c.a. no. 23 of 1951 is whether the suit out of which this appeal arises, that is, o.s. no. 1382 of 1949, is not maintainable because of the provisions of section 47, c. p. c. the facts are not in dispute and may he briefly stated. the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of a plot of land in muktharunnissa begum st. triplicaue, madras.defendants 1 and 2, the appellants before us own and possess the superstructure on the said, land of which they are the tenants holding, under the plaintiffs. the plaintiff filed a suit o.s. no. 1561 of 1941 in the city civil court, to eject the defendants-appellants on payment by him of such sum us the court may fix for the value of the superstructures after deducting therefrom rs. 81-8-0 being the rent and damages for use and occupation of the said land and future damages.in the alternative, if the defendants applied for leave to buy the said land ho prayed for directions to defendants to pay into court within such time such sum as the court may fix for the value of the said land with interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum from the date of decree till date of payment together with a sum of rs. 81-8-0 being the rent and damages for use and occupation of the said land and future damages. this suit was eventually concluded by a compromise decree the terms of which are as follows :"(1) that the value of the suit land measuring (1479 sq. ft is fixed at rs. 1,479 (rs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 1958 (HC)

M.R.Rm.Mr.Rm. Murugappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kannammai Achi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-16-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad76; (1958)IIMLJ461

1. this appeal raises an interesting question of law which we think can be answered by a reference to the principle of the full bench decision in ayyappa v. kasiperumal nayakar, ilr 1939 mad 374 : (air 1939 mad 250). the question is whether a creditor who has obtained a decree against a debtor whose property has been sold in execution of a decree obtained by another creditor can apply to have the sale set aside under order xxi, rule 90, c. p. c. of course if the applicant is not only the holder of another decree but also had applied for rateable distribution of assets or taken steps which would entitle him to such a rateable distribution, then ho would have the right to apply; hut in the present case admittedly the decree-holder who is the appellant before us, has not taken any step in execution. he will not therefore be a person entitled to share in the rateable distribution of assets.then it only remains to consider whether he can he said to be a person whose interests are affected by the sale. the words are indeed very wide and on a literal construction of the words not only decree-holders but even ordinary creditors who have not yet sought to enforce their claims can be said to be affected by the sale of any of the properties of their debtor. indeed any one who has a prospective claim which can be satisfied by a sale of the properties of a person against whom he has the claim can he said to be a person whose interests are affected by the sale of such property.we have no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1958 (HC)

Shah Lalchand Moolchand Vs. R.S. JaIn and Sons

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-17-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad75; (1958)IIMLJ561

1. the decision of this appeal depends upon the construction of one of the rules of the madras kirana merchants' association, madras, of which both the appellant and the respondent are members. a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding a contract for the supply of five jars of mercury. the plaintiff in accordance with rule 15 of the above rules referred the matter to the association for decision in accordance with the rules. rule 15 inter alia provides that all disputes relating to or incidental to contracts and business either between (a) members, (b) members and brokers or in cases where either party to the contract is a member of the association shall be decided by a tribunal of arbitration as hereinafter provided and not otherwise.rule 16 lays down that the decision of the tribunal of arbitration shall be binding on the members and brokers and all other parties to the reference. rule 17, so far as it is material to the present case, runs as follows :"the arbitration tribunal for a reference shall consist of not less than three members and not more than seven members (including the secretary who will always be an ex-officio member of the tribunal as hereinafter provided) to be selected from amongst the members of the association ;(a) subject to section 17, the decision of the secretary as to the number of persons to arbitrate on a particular reference shall be binding on the parties to the reference provided always that either party be entitled to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1958 (HC)

The Central Bank of India, Branch Office Vs. Multanmull Misrimull Firm ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-18-1958

Reported in : (1960)1MLJ187

ganapatia pillai, j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of basheer ahmed sayeed, j., which reversed the decree of the third additional city civil judge, madras, in o.s. no. 180 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1958 (HC)

G. Hari Prasad Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-12-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad406; (1958)2MLJ552

..... 226 of the constitution (w.p. no. 1181 of 1956) was dismissed, applied for a certified copy of the judgment to prefer an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. the judgment in that case was delivered on 11-3-1958, and the petitioner's application for a copy, c. d. 1813 of 1.958, was preferred on 14-3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1958 (HC)

Karuppu Goundan and ors. Vs. Sellammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-12-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad279; (1959)1MLJ173

1. the only question in this appeal against the judgment of rajagopalan, j., in a. s. no. 126 of 1949 is whether an alienation by a hindu widow is binding on the reversioners. the properties in suit belonged to one kali goundan who died in 1918 leaving him surviving his widow varadammal and his two daughters who are the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises. varadammal sold certain properties belonging to kali goundan and which had devolved on her to her father palani goundan under ex. b-l dated 25-3-1921 for a sum of rs. 2000. the plaintiffs attacked the alienation on the ground that it was not supported by necessity. the consideration of rs. 2000 was made up of the following items : (1) rs. 922-10-8 due for principal and interest in respect of a mortgage executed in favour of one sellappa goundan by varadammal on 2-7-1919 for rs. 800: (2) rs. 100 being the balance due in respect of the mortgage executed by kali goundan himself in favour or one veerayi, (3) rs. 100 being the balance due to chinna goundan under a promissory note executed by kali goundan, (4) rs. 100 due to a nattukottai chetti hank at namakkal borrowed by kali goundan and one ramasi goundan and (5) rs. 777-5-4 which was not paid in cash but for which the purchaser is stated to have executed a mortgage in favour of the vendor. soon after his purchase palani goundan sold the major part of the property purchased by him to the fathers of defendants 1, 2 and 3. 2. at the trial, the evidence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1958 (HC)

A. Arunachala Naicker Vs. Ghulam Mahmood Sahib

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-21-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad191; (1959)1MLJ181

..... . a decree for ejectment was passed on 20-8-1846.an appeal was filed against that decree to this court which failed. that decree was further confirmed in the letters patent appeal and the proceedings finally terminated on 23-3-1950 when the tenant was given one year's time to vacate the land. an application for delivery of possession was ..... arose whether a decision of a single judge of the high court under section 76 of the act was subject to a further appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. the supreme court held that such further appeal lay. in so holding the supreme court observed at page 222 (of mad lj) : (at p. 362 of air) :"the rights created ..... of a new subject-matter of appeal to the appellate jurisdiction already exercised by the high court."4. in that view it was held that clause 15 of the letters patent applied to the case and a further appeal lay to a bench of the high court against the judgment of a single judge. it therefore follows that when a right .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1958 (HC)

The State of Madras Vs. the Madura Knitting Co., Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-26-1958

Reported in : [1959]10STC155(Mad)

..... or regular. mr. padmanabhan contested this hotly. according to him, a commercial tax officer could only interfere with the orders passed by a deputy commercial tax officer if they were patently illegal or outside his jurisdiction, or there was impropriety in the sense of misconduct like bribery or inducement by immorality being the cause for the order, and irregularity in the ..... given to the commercial tax officer, the deputy commissioner and the board of revenue under section 12(2) of the madras general sales tax act, were confined only to errors patent on the face of the records, and would not extend to probing further into the records like calling for despatch registers and other evidence. this contention must, be rejected forthwith .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1958 (HC)

L. Kesava Chettiar Vs. M.M. Ramanatha Mudaliar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-30-1958

Reported in : (1960)1MLJ452

ganapatia pillai, j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment arid decree of ramaswami, j., in c.m.a. no. 442 of 1953. the decree in that appeal confirmed the decree of the district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1958 (HC)

The Public Prosecutor Vs. S. Joseph

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-12-1958

Reported in : (1960)1MLJ334

..... . wording of sheo swarup reiterated. high court is not justified in an appeal against acquittal in brushing aside the view taken by the trial court which is by no means patently absurd or unreasonable because as a result of labo- rious process o reasoning, it is pos- sible to take a different view on the evidence.atley v. state of u .....

Tag this Judgment!


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