Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: K. Radhakrishnan

Disposition Application dismissed Court Chennai Decided Jan 10, 1950
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791983

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Misc. Petn. No. 171 of 1950
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Application dismissed
Acts & sections
Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 - Sections 12(3) and 12(4)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: K. Radhakrishnan

Advocate P. Venkatachari, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 - Sections 12(3) and 12(4)
Reported In
AIR1950Mad443

Excerpt

- rajamannar, c.j.1. this is an application to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the appellate authority passed under madras act xv of 1946 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. the order has not been filed, but in the affidavit it is stated to be as follows : 'appellant called, absent. dismissed.' it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the appellant was not present either in person or by advocate, it was incumbent on the appellate authority to have decided the appeal and the provisions of section 12 (3) of the act are relied on. in our opinion, when neither the appellant nor his advocate appeared to show how the rent controller erred and it was not shown that the decision of the rent controller was in any way erroneous, the appellate authority had no other course but to dismiss the appeal. the dismissal of the appeal in such circumstances is nevertheless a decision of the appeal. there is no ground for interference by certiorari. the application is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. This is an application to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the appellate authority passed under Madras ACT XV of 1946 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The order has not been filed, but in the affidavit it is stated to be as follows : 'Appellant called, absent. Dismissed.' It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the appellant was not present either in person or by advocate, it was incumbent on the appellate authority to have decided the appeal and the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Act are relied on. In our opinion, when neither the appellant nor his advocate appeared to show how the Rent Controller erred and it was not shown that the decision of the Rent Controller was in any way erroneous, the appellate authority had no other course but to dismiss the appeal. The dismissal of the appeal in such circumstances is nevertheless a decision of the appeal. There is no ground for interference by certiorari. The application is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial