{"id":213175,"date":"1969-04-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-04-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969"},"modified":"2019-03-05T02:47:49","modified_gmt":"2019-03-04T21:17:49","slug":"k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969","title":{"rendered":"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 146, \t\t 1970 SCR (1) 290<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nK.   R. CHINNA KRISHNA CHETTIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSRI AMBAL & CO., MADRAS & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/04\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  146\t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 290\n 1969 SCC  (2) 131\n\n\nACT:\nTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, ss. 2(j) and 12-Trade\nmarks  when deceptively similar-'Sri Andal' and 'Sri  Ambal'\nthough\tnames  of two different\t goddesses  are\t deceptively\nsimilar\t  in  sound  within  meaning  of   s.\t12(1)-Visual\ndissimilarity not decisive when sounds\tdeceptively similar.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant was the sole proprietor of a concern known  as\nRadha  & Co. The respondents Ambal & Co. were a\t partnership\nconcern.   The\trespondents  as\t also  the  appellant\twere\nmanufacturers and dealers in snuff, carrying on business  at\nMadras and having business activities inside and outside the\nState of Madras.  In 1958 the appellant sought\tregistration\nof a trade mark consisting of a label with a picture of\t the\ngoddess Sri Andal and the legand 'Sri Andal' in the  central\npanel,\tand  the words 'Sri Andal Madras Snuff'\t in  various\nlanguages in the upper and lower panels.     The appellant's\napplication was objected to by the respondents on the  ground\nthat  it was deceptively similar to their  registered  trade\nmarks.\t  One  of  these consisted of a label  containing  a\ndevice\tof goddess Sri Ambal in the centre with\t the  legand\n'Sri  Ambal parimala snuff' at the top of the label and\t the\nname  'Sri  Ambal & Co. Madras' at the\tbottom.\t  The  other\ntrade  mark  consisted of the expression 'Sri  Ambal'.\t The\nRegistrar of Trade Marks held that the sound of 'Ambal'\t did\nnot  so\t nearly resemble the sound of 'Andal'  in  spite  of\ncertain\t letters  being common to both the marks  as  to  be\nlikely\tto cause confusion or deception among a\t substantial\nnumber of persons.  A Single Judge of the High Court and the\nDivisional  Bench however took the opposite  view  whereupon\nthe  appellant\tcame  to  this Court.\tNo  plea  of  honest\nconcurrent  use -within the meaning of s. 12(2) of  the\t Act\ncould  be raised in view of the concurrent finding  in\tthis\nrespect by the Registrar as well as the two courts below.\nHELD  :\t (i)  The Registrar had\t expert\t knowledge  and\t his\ndecision  should  not be lightly disturbed.   But  both\t the\ncourts had found that he was clearly\twrong and that there\nwas deceptive similarity between the two marks.\t  In\t  an\nappeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution the onus was\tupon\nthe  appellant\tto show that the concurrent finding  of\t the\ncourts\tbelow  was erroneous and that the conditions  of  s.\n12(1) had been satisfied [293 F]\n(ii) The  question in issue was whether if  the\t appellant's\nmark was used in a normal and fair manner in connection with\nthe snuff and if similarly fair and normal user was  assumed\nof  the\t existing  registered marks, will there\t be  such  a\nlikelihood  of\tdeception  that the mark  ought\t not  to  be\nallowed\t to  be\t registered ? The court had  to\t decide\t the\nquestion  on a comparison of the competing marks as a  whole\nand their distinctive and essential features. [293 H-294 B]\nSo considered there could be no doubt that the word  'Ambal'\nwas  the  distinguishing feature of the trade  mark  of\t the\nrespondent  and\t the  word 'Andal'  was\t the  distinguishing\nfeature of the appellant's trade mark.\tThere is a  striking\nsimilarity and affinity of sound between the words 'Andal'\n\t\t\t    291\nand  'Ambal'  Giving  due  weight to  the  judgment  of\t the\nRegistrar and bearing in mind the conclusions of the  Single\nJudge  and the Divisional Bench it must be held\t that  there\nwas real danger of confusion between the two marks, [294  B-\nC]\n(iii)\t  There\t was no visual resemblance between  the\t two\nmarks but ocular comparison is not always the decisive test.\nThe  resemblance  between the two marks must  be  considered\nwith reference to the ear as well as the eye. [294 D]\n(iv) The  argument  that on account of the  different  ideas\n'conveyed  by the words 'Ambal' and 'Andal'  the  accidental\nphonetic  resemblance' could not lead to confusion  was\t not\nacceptable  because  it lost sight of the realities  of\t the\ncase.\tThe Hindus in the South of India may be\t well  aware\nthat  the words Ambal and Andal represent the names  of\t two\ndistinct goddesses.  But the respondent's customers were not\nconfined to the Hindus of the South of India alone and\tthey\nwere not likely to remember the fine distinctions between  a\nVaishnavite goddess and a Shivaite deity.\nThe appeal, accordingly, must be disallowed.\n\t\t\t [295 B-F]\n\t\t\t  [295 H]\nIn  the matter of Broadhead's Application, (1950) 57  R.P.C.\n209,  214,  Coca Cola Co. of Canada, v. Pepsi  Cola  Co.  of\nCanada Ltd. (1942) 59 R.P.C. 127, De Cordova & Ors. v.\tVick\nChemical.   Cov.  (1951) 68 R.P.C. 103, and  Application  by\nThomas\tA.  Smith Ltd. to Register a trade mark,  (1913)  30\nR.P.C. 363, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No, 749 of 1966.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nNovember 21, 1962 of the Madras High Court in Letters Patent
\nAppeal No. 57 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
A.   K.\t Sen,  K.  Jayaram  and\t A.  Thiagarajan,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C. Chagla, N. K. Anand, M. P.Rao and O. C. Mathur, for
\nrespondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat,  J.  The  appellant is the sole  proprietor  of  a
\ntrading concern known as Radha & Co., The respondents  Ambal
\n& Co., are a partnership firm.\tThe respondents as also\t the
\nappellant are manufacturers and dealers in snuff carrying on
\nbusiness at Madras and having business activities inside and
\noutside\t the  State  of\t Madras.   On  March  10,  1958\t the
\nappellant filed application no. 183961 for registration of a
\ntrade mark in class 34 in respect of ” snuff manufactured in
\nMadras.” The respondents filed a notice of opposition.\t The
\nmain  ground  of opposition was that the proposed  mark\t was
\ndeceptively  similar to their registered trade\tmarks.\t The
\nrespondents  were  the proprietors of the  registered  marks
\nnos. 126808 and 146291.\t Trade mark no. 126808 consists of a
\nlabel containing a device of a goddess Sri Ambal seated on a
\nglobe  floating on water enclosed in a circular\t frame\twith
\nthe legend “Sri
\n292<\/span>
\nAmbal parimala snuff” at the top of the label, and the\tname
\nand address “Sri Ambal & Co., Madras” at the bottom.   Trade
\nmark no. 146291 consists of the expression “Sri Ambal”.\t The
\nmark of which the appellant seeks registration consists of a
\nlabel  containing  three panels.  The first  and  the  third
\npanels\tcontain in Tamil, Devanagri, Telugu and Kannada\t the
\nequivalents  of\t the words “Sri Andal  Madras  Snuff”.\t The
\ncentre\tpanel contains the picture of goddess Sri Andal\t and
\nthe legend “Sri Andal”.\n<\/p>\n
Sri Andal and Sri Ambal are separate divinities.  Sri  Andal
\nwas a vaishnavite woman saint of, Srivilliputur village\t and
\nwas deified because of her union with Lord Ranganatha.\t Sri
\nAmbal is the consort of Siva or Maheshwara.
\n The respondents have been in the snuff business for several
\ndecades\t and have used the word Ambal as part of their\twork
\nfor  more  than half a century.\t The question  in  issue  is
\nwhether\t the  proposed mark is deceptively  similar  to\t the
\nrespondents’  marks.   “Mark” as defined in s. 2(j)  of\t the
\nTrade  and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 includes\t “a  device,
\nbrand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter
\nor  numeral  or\t any combination  thereof”.   Section  12(1)
\nprovides that “save as provided in sub-section (3), no trade
\nmark  shall  be registered in respect of any goods  or\tdes-
\ncription  of  goods which is identical with  or\t deceptively
\nsimilar\t to a trade mark which is already registered in\t the
\nname of a different proprietor in respect of the same  goods
\nor  description of goods.” The Registrar of Trade  of  Marks
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  a composite mark the\t distinctive  words,
\n\t      appearing\t on  it\t play  -an  important  part.
\n\t      Words  always talk more than devices,  because
\n\t      it  is  generally\t by  the  word\tpart  of   a
\n\t      composite\t mark  that orders  will  be  given.
\n\t      Apart   from  that,  the\topponents   have   a
\n\t      registered  mark consisting of the  expression
\n\t      Sri  Ambal.  I have, therefore,  to  determine
\n\t      whether  the expression Sri Andal,  is  decep-
\n\t      tively similar to Sri Ambal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      He said :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ”\t the  sound of “Ambal” does  not  so  nearly
\n\t      resemble\tthe  sound of “Andal”, in  spite  of
\n\t      certain  letters\tbeing  common  to  both\t the
\n\t      marks,  as to be likely to cause confusion  or
\n\t      deception\t  among\t a  substantial\t number\t  of
\n\t      persons.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The respondents filed an appeal in the  Madras
\n\t      High Court. Jagadishan, J. observed
\n\t      “It   is\tsettled\t law  that  a\ttrade\tmark
\n\t      comprehends  not merely the picture design  or
\n\t      symbol but also its descriptive name.  A\tcopy
\n\t      of colourable imitation of the
\n\t\t\t\t   293<\/span>
\n\t      name, would constitute -an infringement of the
\n\t      mark containing the name.\t Nobody can abstract
\n\t      the name or -use a phonetical equivalent of it
\n\t      and  escape the charge of piracy of  the\tmark
\n\t      pleading that the visual aspect of his mark is
\n\t      different from the mark of the person opposing
\n\t      its registration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      He held:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The  words, Ambal and Andal, have such  great
\n\t      phonetic\t  similarity\tthat\tthey\t are
\n\t      undistinguishable\t having the same  sound\t and
\n\t      pronounciation.\tIn  whatever  way  they\t are
\n\t      uttered or spoken, slowly or quickly perfectly
\n\t      or imperfectly, meticulously or carelessly and
\n\t      whoever  utters them, a foreigner or a  native
\n\t      of  India,  wherever they are uttered  in\t the
\n\t      noisy  market place or in a calm and  secluded
\n\t      area, over the phone or in person, the  danger
\n\t      of  confusion  between  the  two\tphonetically
\n\t      allied names is imminent -and unavoidable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Accordingly,  he  allowed  the\tappeal\tand  dismissed\t the
\nappellant’s application for registration of the trade  mark.
\nThe appellant filed a letters patent appeal.  The Divisional
\nBench  of the High Court dismissed the appeal.\tThe  learned
\nRegistrar  and the two courts below concurrently found\tthat
\nthe  appellant failed to, prove honest concurrent use so  as
\nto  bring his case within s. 12(3).  The present appeal\t has
\nbeen filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave.
\nThe Registrar was of the view that the appellant’s mark\t was
\nnot deceptively similar to the respondents’ trade marks.  He
\nhas expert knowledge of such matters and his decision should
\nnot  be lightly disturbed.  But both the courts\t have  found
\nthat he was clearly wrong and held that there is a deceptive
\nsimilarity between the two marks.  In -an appeal under\tart.
\n136  of the Constitution the onus is upon the  appellant  to
\nshow  that  the concurrent finding of the  courts  below  is
\nerroneous.   The appellant must satisfy the court  that\t the
\nconditions  of\ts.  12 (I) have been  satisfied.   If  those
\nconditions are not satisfied his mark cannot be registered.
\nNow the words “Sri Ambal” form part of trade mark no. 126808
\nand are the whole of trade mark no. 146291.  There can be no
\ndoubt  that the word “Ambal” is an essential feature of\t the
\ntrade  marks.  The common “Sri,, is the subsidiary part,  of
\nthe  two  words “Ambal” is the more  distinctive  and  fixes
\nitself\tin  the\t recollection  of  an  average\tbuyer\twith
\nimperfect recollection.\n<\/p>\n
The  vital question in issue is whether, if the\t appellant’s
\nmark is used in a normal and fair manner in connection\twith
\nthe snuff
\nLI 3Sup.CI\/69- 5
\n294<\/span>
\nand  if\t similarly fair and normal user is  assumed  of\t the
\nexisting  registered marks, will there be such a  likelihood
\nof  deception  that the mark ought not to be allowed  to  be
\nregistered (see In the matter of Broadhead’s  Application(1)
\nfor  registration of a trade mark).  It is for the court  to
\ndecide\tthe question on a comparison of the competing  marks
\nas a whole and their distinctive and essential features.  We
\nhave no doubt in our mind that if the proposed mark is\tused
\nin a normal and fair manner the mark would come to be  known
\nby its distinguishing feature “Andal”.\tThere is a  striking
\nsimilarity  and affinity of sound between the words  “Andal”
\nand  “Ambal”.\tGiving\tdue weight to the  judgment  of\t the
\nRegistrar and bearing in mind the conclusions of the learned
\nSingle Judge and the Divisional Bench, we are satisfied that
\nthere is a real danger of confusion between the two marks.
\nThere is no evidence of actual confusion, but that might  be
\ndue  to the fact that the appellant’s trade is not  of\tlong
\nstanding.   There is no visual resemblance between  the\t two
\nmarks,\tbut  ocular comparison is not  always  the  decisive
\ntest.\tThe  resemblance  between  the\ttwo  marks  must  be
\nconsidered  with  reference to the ear as well as  the\teye.
\nThere is a close affinity of sound between Ambal and Andal.
\nIn the case of Coca-Cola Co. of Canada v. Pepsi Cola Co.  of
\nCanada Ltd.(2), it was found that cola was in common use  in
\nCanada for naming the beverages.  The distinguishing feature
\nof  the mark Coca Cola was coca and not cola.  For the\tsame
\nreason the distinguishing feature of the mark Pepsi Cola was
\nPepsi  and not cola.  It was not likely that any  one  would
\nconfuse\t the word Pepsi with coca.  In the present case\t the
\nword   “Sri”  may  be  regarded\t as  in\t common\t use.\t The
\ndistinguishing\tfeature\t of the respondent’s mark  is  Ambal
\nwhile that of the appellant’s mark is Andal.  The two  words
\nare deceptively similar in sound.\n<\/p>\n
The  name  Andal does not cease to  be\tdeceptively  similar
\nbecause\t it is used in conjunction with a pictorial  device.
\nThe  case of De Cordova & Ors. v. Vick Chemical\t Coy.(3)  is
\ninstructive.   From the Appendix printed at page 270 of\t the
\nsame  volume  it  appears that Vick Chemical  Coy  were\t the
\nproprietors  of the registered trade mark consisting of\t the
\nword “Vaporub” and another registered trade mark  consisting
\nof a design of which the words “Vicks Vaporub Salve”  formed
\na part.\t The appendix at page 226 -shows that the defendants
\nadvertised  their ointment as ‘Karsote vapour Rub”.  It\t was
\nheld that the defendants had infringed the registered  mark&
\nLord Radcliffe said : “. . . a mark is infringed
\n(1)  (1950) 57 R.P.C. 209, 214.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  (1951) 68 R.P.C. 103.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1942) 59 R.P.C. 127.\n<\/p>\n
29 5
\nby  another  trader if, even without using the whole  of  it
\nupon or in connection with his goods, he uses one or more of
\nits essential features.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Sen stressed the point that the words Ambal  and  Andal
\nhad  distinct meanings.\t Ambal is the consort of  Lord\tSiva
\nand  Andal  is the consort of Ranganatha.  He said  that  in
\nview of the distinct ideas conveyed by the two words a\tmere
\naccidental phonetic resemblance could not lead to confusion.
\nIn this connection he relied on Venkateswaran’s Law of Trade
\nand  Merchandise Marks,_ 1963 ed., page 214, Kerly’s Law  of
\nTrade Marks and Trade Names, 9th ed., page 465, art. 852 and
\nthe  decision  Application  by Thomas  A.  Smith  Ltd.,\t to,
\nRegister  a  trade mark(1).  In that case Neville,  J.\theld
\nthat  the  words “limit” and “summit” were words  in  common
\nuse,  each conveying a distinctly definite idea; that  there
\nwas  no\t possibility of any one being deceived\tby  the\t two
\nmarks;\tand there was no ground, for refusing  registration.
\nMr. Sen’s argument loses sight of the realities of the case.
\nThe Hindus in the south of India may be well -aware that the
\nwords  Ambal and Andal represent the names of  two  distinct
\ngoddesses.  But the respondent’s customers are not  confined
\nto  Hindus alone.  Many of their customers  are\t Christians,
\nParsees,   Muslims   and   persons   of\t  other\t   religious
\ndenominations.\tMoreover, their business is not confined  to
\nsouth of India.\t The customers who are not Hindus or who  do
\nnot belong to the south of India may not know the difference
\nbetween the words Andal and Ambal.  The words have no direct
\nreference  to  the  character and  quality  of\tsnuff.\t The
\ncustomers  who\tuse  the  respondent’s\tgoods  will  have  a
\nrecollection  that they are known by the word  Ambal.\tThey
\nmay  also  have a vague recollection of the  portrait  of  a
\nbenign goddess used in connection with the mark.  They\t-are
\nnot  likely  to\t remember the fine  distinctions  between  a
\nVaishnavite goddess and a Shivaite deity.
\nWe  think the judgment appealed from is right and should  be
\naffirmed.  We are informed that the appellant filed  another
\napplication  no.  212575 seeking registration of  labels  of
\nwhich the expression “Radha’s Sri Andal Madras Snuff”  forms
\na  part.   The\tlearned\t Registrar  has\t disposed  of\t-the
\napplication  in favour of the appellant.  But we  understand
\nthat an appeal is pending in the High Court.  It was  argued
\nthat there was no phonetic similarity between Sri Ambal\t and
\nRadha’s Sri Andal and the use of the expression Radha’s\t Sri
\nAndal  was not likely to lead to confusion.  The  Divisional
\nBench  found force in this argument.  But as the  matter  is
\nsub-judice we express no opinion on it.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n(1)  (1913) 30 R.P.C. 363.\n296<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 146, 1970 SCR (1) 290 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: K. R. CHINNA KRISHNA CHETTIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: SRI AMBAL & CO., MADRAS & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/04\/1969 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-04-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-04T21:17:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-04-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-04T21:17:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2008,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969\",\"name\":\"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-04-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-04T21:17:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-04-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-04T21:17:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969","datePublished":"1969-04-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-04T21:17:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969"},"wordCount":2008,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969","name":"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-04-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-04T21:17:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-chinna-krishna-chettiar-vs-sri-ambal-co-madras-anr-on-14-april-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar vs Sri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr on 14 April, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213175","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}