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.
S.V.M. Sundararaja Reddiar Vs. A.K.A. Ramachandra Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad385; (1945)1MLJ385
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant is the third plaintiff in a mortgage suit which resulted m a preliminary decree of 1933 and a final decree of 1934.He was contesting respondent in an application filed by the first and the 8thdefendants for the amendment of the mortgage decree under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 It has been held that the elghth defendant is not an agriculturist, though the first defendant is an agriculturist. The mortgage was executed in r9o8 by the father of defendants 1 to 4. In 1925, they sold the hypotheca to the fifth defendan who became an insolvent, and m 1930 the Official Receiver in insolvency resold the hypotheca to the present eighth defendant. At the time when the mortgSe suit was filed the personal remedy had become barred, and the mortgagors retained no interest m the hypotheca. The question is whether in such circumstances he first defendant as one of the representatives of the original mortgagor is entitled to get the decree debt scaled down for the b...
P.S.B. Bommanna Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Province of Madras, Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad442; (1945)2MLJ69
Somayya, J.1. The question involved in these two appeals is the same and that is whether for the purposes of the Madras Town-Planning Act, an acquisition can be said to have been when an award was passed or only when possession was actually taken in pursuance of the award. A notification of the intended acquisition was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on the 6th September, 1932. An award was made by the Collector on the 26th August, 1935, and possession was taken on the 18th December, 1936. Under Section 34 of the Madras Town Planning Act, if the land is not acquired within three years from the date of the notification, it (the notification) shall cease to have effect as a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. It is common ground that if the land was acquired only on the date when possession was taken, more than three years had elapsed from the date of the notification and the notification will cease to have effect as a declaration under Section 6 of ...
Maganti Venkataswami Naidu Vs. Annapareddi Nagireddi Alias Mutyalu Red ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad258; (1946)1MLJ5
Wadsworth, J.1. These three appeals are preferred by the decree-holder in a mortgage suit against the orders resulting from proceedings after the decree. The suit was one of 1928. It was dismissed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court passed a decree in January 1934, for payment of Rs. 3,031-7-0 as on 22nd April, 1934, the date fixed for redemption. A second appeal was filed to this Court. While that second appeal was pending, the decree-holder took out execution. On 1st February, 1936, a portion of the hypotheca which belonged to the 8th defendant who was not one of the mortgagors was sold for Rs. 1,785 to the decree-holder, who got delivery. On 4th January, 1937, there was a further sale of items belonging to the mortgagors, defendants 1 to 3, for a sum of Rs. 855 in favour of the decree-holder who also got delivery. The second appeal came up for hearing on 1st November, 1938. By this time Madras Act IV of 1938 had come into force, but the precise effect of its terms was subj...
In Re: V. Pattabi Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad446; (1945)2MLJ130
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of an offence punishable under Sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 or to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in default.2. There can be no doubt that the conviction is correct. The petitioner had purchased two tins of butter each 12 visses in weight for the purpose of some festival in his house. The tins of butter, however, were not used and he sold to a dealer, P.W. 2. When he sold them and that is the basis of the charge--he gave a warranty that the butter was pure and unadulterated and that it was up to the specifications required by the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act provides that, 'every person, who, in respect of an article of food sold by him whether as principal or as agent, gives to the purchaser a false warranty in ...
In Re: S. Ramakrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad317; (1945)1MLJ314
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted by the learned Fifth Presidency Magistrate of an offence punishable under Section 18, Sub-section (1) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, and have been sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 10 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.2. The petitioners were the author and the printer and publisher respectively of a pamphlet headed ' A clarion call by the Tamil Nadu Students' Federation.'3. The publication of the pamphlet was not authorised by a Magistrate and the conviction of the petitioners has been based on the finding and that the pamphlet is a news-sheet within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-section (6) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, the publication of which requires the authorisation of the Magistrate. Section 15(1) of the Act provides that:The Magistrate may, by order in writing and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, authorise any person by name to publish a news-sheet, or to publ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri K.M.S. Lakshmana Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ383
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which arises in this reference is really answered by our judgment delivered on the 16th February, 1945, in V.M. Raghavalu. Naidu and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, R.C.No. 38 of 1944. The assessee is a partner in two firms. He has a son who is a minor and the minor has been admitted of the benefits of these partnerships. The share of the profits falling to the minor would have been included in the father's assessment for the year 1938-39; but the income-tax Officer, under a wrong conception of the law, did not include the minor's share in calculating the income of the father, and the matter wasteft there. In the following year, the minor's share was included. The assessee took objection to this course and carried the matter to 'this Court, which on the 15th September, 1941, held that the minor's share was properly included in the assessment for the year 1939-40. On the 14th March, 1940, that is eighteen months before this Cour...
Bava C. Gopalaswami Mudaliar Vs. the Executive Officer, Sri Thiagaraja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad347; (1945)1MLJ428
Somayya, J.1.The question raised in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is whether execution is barred. The relevant facts are these. The decree in questionwas passed on 8th November, 1982, by the Court of Small Causes, Madras. M.P. No. 685 of 1934 was filed for transmitting the decree to the District Munsifif's Court at Negapatam. It was ordered but as no steps were taken within the time limited, the decree was returned to the Court of Small Causes, Madras. Then E.P. No. 14677 was filed by the present appellant who is an assignee of the decree-holder's rights. His assignment was recognised and his request for attachment of the decree which the judgment-debtor had obtained in another suit, O.S. No. 136 of 1936 was granted. It is not known what became of that execution application. Attachment was ordered on the 8th January, 1937. On the 8th January, 1940, the appellant filed an execution application for transmitting the decree to the District MunsifFs Court of Tiruvarur for execution...
Nayar Varada Pillai Vs. Ghulam Dastagir and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad11; (1945)2MLJ190
King, J.1. This is an appeal by the landlord of certain property in Madras who filed a suit to evict the tenant. The tenant, claimed protection under the City Tenants' Protection Act on the ground that his tenancy originated before the Act came into force. The actual document of lease between the parties was executed in May 1924 which was after the Act came into force. It was held by the learned Additional City Civil Judge that in spite of the fact that there was no rent deed until 1924, the tenancy, nevertheless, originated at the time when the first defendant entered into occupation of the premises.2. The only point that has been made in appeal by the landlord is that this case falls within the principle of the decision of the Privy Council reported in Ranga-nadham Chettiar v. Ethirajulu Naidu (1940) 1 M.L.J. 24 : L.R. 67 IndAp 35 : (1940)I.L.R. Mad. 172 (P.C.). It was held in that case that in spite of the physical continuity of tenancy, the execution of a particular rent deed in 19...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. M. S. Lakshmana Iyer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR242(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice.)The question which arises in this reference is really answered by our judgment delivered on the 16th February, 1945, in V. M. Raghavalu Naidu & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, R. C. No. 38 of 1944. The assessee is a partner in two firms. He has a son who is a minor and the minor has been admitted to the benefits of these partnerships. The share of the profits falling to the minor should have been included in the fathers assessment for the year 1938-39; but the Income-tax Officer, under a wrong conception of the law, did not include the minors share in calculating the income of the father, and the matter was left there. In the following year, the minors share was included. The assessee took objection to this course and carried the matter to this Court which on the 15th September, 1941, held that the minors share was properly included in the assessment for the year 1939-40. On the 14th March, 1940, that is ...
C. Moothaliondam Chetty Vs. G. Venkatesam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad386; (1945)1MLJ441
Mockett, J.1. This revision petition is from an order of the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court made on an ejectment petition. The lower Court refused an order for possession. The agreed facts are that on the 7th February, 1944, the petitioner referred to hereafter as the landlord gave notice to one Subbiah his tenant to quit by the 28th February. On the 18th of March, an ejectment suit was filed against Subbiah. It may be here stated that without the knowledge of the landlord, Subbiah had sub-let to one Kotiah and Kotiah had sub-let in June 1943 to the respondent. There was a decree in the ejectment suit No. 143 of 1944 for possession on the 31st of March, 1944, possession to be given on the 14th of April. It was discovered on the 11 th of April that,the respondent was in possession. On the 14th of April, the bailiff went to obtain possession and was obstructed by the respondent. He said he was a sub-tenant under Subbiah whereupon this application of the 21st of April was made to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »