Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing P.J.S. Jayarama Chettiar vs D. Annamalai Chettiar on 15 July, 1971

Alkem Laboratories Ltd vs Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd. & Ors on 12 October, 2021

HAJMOLA (DB) (R) (x) Arvind 2007 (35) EYETEX Eye Lotion Injunction granted Laboratories v. PTC 244 (P) Hahnemann (SJ) EYELEX Laboratory Pvt. (D) Ltd. (xi) USV 2003 (26) PIOZ (P) Pioglitazone Injunction granted Limited v. IPCA PTC 21 PIOZED Hydrochlori Laboratories (SJ) (D) de Limited (xii) Aravind 1981 (1) EYETEX Eye Tonic Injunction granted Laboratories v. MLJ 75 (P) V. Annamalai (SJ) EYESOL Chettiar (D) (xiii) Schering 2010 (42) TEMOKEM Temozolom Injunction refused Corporation v. PTC 772 (P) ide Alkem (Del) DB TEMOGET Laboratories (D) Ltd. (xiv) Astrazenecea 2007 (34) MERONE Meropenem -do- UK PTC 469 M (P) Ltd. v. Orchid (DB) MEROMER Chemicals (Del.)
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

Vaman Ganpatrao Trilokekar And Ors. vs Malati Ramchandra Raut And Ors. on 18 November, 1987

18. There is only one decision which is squarely upon this point of valuation. It is the judgment of a learned single judge of the Madras High Court in Jayarama Chettiar v. D. Annamalai Chettiar, . The argument was that the market value of the house in question should have been ascertained not as on the day when the plaintiffs half-share therein was ordered to be sold but as on the date on which the defendant had offered to purchase it. The learned judge considered the language of Section 3 and found that it contemplated the ascertainment of the price as on the date of the order for sale. The learned judge noted that seven years had elapsed between the date of the offer and the date of the order for sale and that during that period the market value of the house had shot up considerably but that, he said, was no reason why the defendant should exclude the plaintiff from the benefit of the rise in price during the seven years in question. The plaintiff had continued to be the co-owner of the house along with the defendant up to the date of the sale.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Fathima Bee Alias Mumtaz vs A.Khairunnissa on 22 August, 2024

23. By virtue of this judgment, the view that was taken is that an application under Section 3 can be made only before a Court directs the sale under Section 2 of the Partition Act. This judgment, held the fort for four decades. It came up for consideration before Mr.Justice P.S.Kailasam in P.J.S.Jayarama Chettiar vs. Annamalai Chettiar (1966) ILR 2 MAD 530. The learned Judge held that these observations are obiter and therefore, not binding on him.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1