AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Thangavel, J.—The petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent dated 26.4.1988 changing the
constitution of the partners in respect of V.K. Kaliappa Gounder and Sons and in respect of the partnership concern.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the changes in the Register of the Trade Marks have been made without any
notice to the petitioner and at the instance of the respondents 2 and 3 which is illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The respondents 2 and 3 filed Civil Suits O.S. 49 of 1988 and O.S. 4 of 1991 on the file of the Principle District Judge, North Arcot
Ambedkar District, Vellore wherein the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition arise as a vital issue. The learned District Judge, while
granting injunction in favour of the respondents 2 and 3 herein, held that the changes made in the Register of Trade Marks at the instance of some
of the partners, without any notice to the petitioners, is invalid and the petitioner is deemed to be continuing as a partner in the said partnership firm
''V.K. Kaliappa Gownder & Sons''.
The said finding of the learned District Judge was confirmed by the learned single Judge of this Court in AS. Nos. 1000 and 1001 of 1996 on
the file of this Court.
The said finding of the learned single Judge was challenged in L.P.A. Nos. 27 and 28 of 1999 on the file of this Court and we have disposed of
the said L.P.As today, wherein we agreed with the view taken by the learned single Judge that the changes made in the Register of Trade Marks in
respect of the partners entitled for the use of the said Trade Mark ''V.K. Kaliappa Gownder & Sons'' is invalid.
Since the matter had been settled in the civil suit, it is unnecessary for us to go into the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
this writ petition in detail.
Pursuant to the finding given in L.P.A. Nos. 27 and 28 of 1999, confirming the finding of the learned single Judge in A.S. Nos. 1000 and 1001
of 1996, it is open to the petitioner to seek the appropriate relief before the proper forum. With the said liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.