Chennai Court March 1945 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Manager, Indian Express
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad440; (1945)2MLJ68
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The facts as proved are that a motor car owned by the petitioner was twice used, on the 1st of July and a week before, for taking bundles of newspapers from the office of the Indian Express to the railway station. Section 42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits the use of a transport vehicle save in accordance with the conditions of a permit and Section 123 provides the punishment for an offence in contravention of Section 42(1). A goods vehicle is by definition a transport vehicle [Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act]; and 'goods vehicle ' is defined in Section 2(8) as follows:'goods vehicle' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers.Th...
Nanjappa Goundan Vs. Sreeranga Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad422; (1945)2MLJ117
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was indebted to the respondent under a deed of mortgage. The appellant applied to the Debt Conciliation Board, Coimbatore, for a settlement of the debt and the Board decided that the appellant should pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 664. As a result of this direction an agreement was executed by the parties on the 19th August, 1939, whereby it was agreed that the appellant should pay the amount within a period of four months and that if it was not paid within that time the respondent should be at liberty to recover the sum with interest which had accrued thereon and costs by executing the agreement as a decree for the sale of the mortgaged property. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act states that an agreement made under the first subsection (the agreement here was made under that sub-section) shall, within thirty days from the date of the making thereof, be registered under the Indian Registration Act by th...
Cherutti Alias Raman Nair Vs. S. Saraswathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad457; (1945)2MLJ96
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant and the only question is-whether a puramkadam advance of Rs. 400 made by him on 9th February, 1923, to Damodaran Nambudiri said to be the then kamavan of the fifth defendant's tarwad is binding against the plaintiff. The. plaintiff is the melcharthdar claiming under Ex. P-2, dated 25th October, 1938. She filed the suit to redeem the original kanom evidenced by Ex. P-1 dated 12th May, 1920, which was for a sum of Rs. 100-and a purapad of 62 paras of paddy. In answer, the first defendant set up that he was entitled to be paid the puramkadam advance also, which he gave to Damodaran Nambudiri under Ex. D-1. Both the Courts have held that the puramkadam advance is not binding against the plaintiff, as it was made contrary to the terms of a karar, Ex. D-4, entered into between the members of the fifth defendant's tarwad on nth November, 1919, under which it was agreed that no debts could be borrowed for the tarwad except by the ...
Palani Vannan and ors. Vs. Krishnaswami Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad9; (1945)2MLJ303
Mockett, J.1. This appeal can be dealt with very briefly because it raises a short but interesting question of construction and its decision depends on the view I take of the construction of a single document. The short facts are as follows: There was a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit, dated the 14th March, 1936 in favour of one Sethu Madhava Rao against, amongst others, the present appellants. There was a final decree in August, 1936. On the 25th July, 1937 the decree was assigned by Sethu Madhava Rao to one Govinda Konan. On the 19th July, 1939, Govinda Konan executed a power of attorney, Ex. D-1 to one Vedavyasachar authorising him to execute the decree. On the 3rd February, 1941, Govinda Konan assigned the decree to Krishnaswami Konar, the present first respondent. On the 6th March 1941, by Ex. P-3, Govinda Konan sent a notice to the judgment debtors and to Vedavyasachar revoking the power of attorney. The execution petition before the lower Court was to recognise the assignm...
In Re: Chilukuri Antarvedi Sarma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad489; (1946)1MLJ466
ORDERHappell, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tenali, made in P.R.C. No. 11 of 1944, overruling objections to his jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 467 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. A promissory note was brought into existence on the 12th September, 1943, for the principal sum of Rs. 450 which purported to be executed by the complainant in favour of the second accused. It was written by the first accused and attested by the third accused. This promissory note was assigned to the fourth accused and he issued a registered notice to the complainant demanding the amount due under the promissory note and 'on the complainant denying that he had executed the promissory note, filed S.C. No. 15 of 1944, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali, on the footing of the promissory note. The promissory note was sent to the Government Hand-writing Expert who gave the opinion that the finger-print on the...
S.A.S. Rathnathammal Vs. M. Arulanandam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad12; (1945)2MLJ194
Horwill, J.1. The matters argued in this appeal relate to the construction of a will executed by one vakil, B.S. Susai Pillai in favour of his widow and foster-daughter, the latter being the plaintiff. One question is whether on the construction of the will, the testator meant to leave the whole of his property, after the payment of certain legacies, to these two persons or whether he left them merely the property of which he was possessed at the time of writing the will. The other question is whether a bequest simpliciter to these two persons would be a bequest to them jointly or severally. The plaintiff's contention was that Susai Pillai bequeathed under this will the whole of his property and that it was a joint bequest. Both these points were decided against the plaintiff in the lower' appellate Court.2. The only passages with which we are concerned are found in paragraph 1 of the will, Ex. P-1, It runs:Without inheriting any ancestral property, I earned all the properties belongin...
S. Ranganatha Iyer Vs. the Indo Union Assurance Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad20; (1945)2MLJ297
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The plaintiff, in response to his application for the post, was appointed as Chief Agent of the defendant Insurance Company for a period of 10 years commencing from the 2nd May, 1943. There was a stipulation in the contract of employment that a guarantee should be given by the plaintiff in respect of the volume of work that he would secure. During the course of the plaintiff's employment, there was transfer of management of the defendant company to the2. Prithvi Insurance Co., Ltd., who had purchased a number of shares of the defendant company. This was necessitated by the financial state of the defendant. After the Prithvi Insurance Co. had thus obtained control of the defendant company, it was decided that the latter should run its business as a 'closed fund'. As a consequence, notices were issued by the new management to all the agents and sub-agents of the defendant company on the 30th November, 1943, asking them to stop taking new business from the 15th December,...
In Re: CaptaIn Hugh May Stollery Mundy, Commanding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad289; (1945)1MLJ388
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. There are two matters before us. One is an application by the Officer Commanding the Royal Naval Air Station, Tambaram, for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to quash the conviction of Eric Collins, an engine-room mechanic, who has been sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The other matter is an application by the accused for the revision of his conviction and sentence. It is quite clear that the Magistrate who investigated the charge and convicted the accused did not act in accordance with law.2. By reason of Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Central Government may make rules consistent with the Code and the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act and that Act as modified by the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act and the Air Force Act and any similar law for the time being in force as to the ...
Rajamayyer Alias Subramania Iyer Vs. Venkatasubba Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad468; (1945)2MLJ122
Sastri, J.1. The question that falls to be decided in this second appeal is whether a sub-mortgagee impleaded as a defendant in a suit for sale brought by the original mortgagee is entitled to apply for a final decree where the preliminary decree for sale ascertained the amount due to him but contained no provision authorising him to make such an application on default of payment by the mortgagor of the amount due to the original mortgagee.2. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit executed, along with another a simple mortgage for Rs. 2,000 in favour of the plaintiff's father in respect of the suit properties on 22nd September, 1920. The plaintiff's father sub-mortgaged his mortgage right to secure a sum of Rs. 1,500 borrowed from the third defendant on 12th October, 1927 and effected a further sub-mortgage for Rs. 500 on 7th December, 1929 in favour of defendants 4 and 5. On, the adjudication of the fifth defendant as insolvent his interest in the sub-mortgage vested in the Official Recei...
Thrikkaikkat Madathil Raman Alias Arithottath Thirumumbu Vs. Vallikkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad489; (1945)2MLJ191
Horwill, J.1. The respondent is a kanamdar and the appellant the owner of the suit land. The suit was filed for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that he had not paid the stipulated rent. The second defendant, who was the assignee of the kanam right, thereupon filed O.P. No 48 of 1941 for the renewal of the kanam, as he was entitled to do under the Act. The appellant then amended his plaint and furnished an additional ground for eviction, viz., the commission of waste. That is the only question that was discussed in the lower appellate Court; and it is the only question to be considered in this Court. The lower appellate Court held that the appellant was not entitled to evict the respondent.2. It is not sufficient for the appellant to prove waste. A mere diversion of the use of the land might amount to waste; but according to Section 20(2) he cannot have a tenant evicted unless he proves that the tenant:has intentionally and wilfully committed such acts of waste as are calcu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »