Chennai Court November 1946 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.
Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Muthukaruppan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad305; (1947)1MLJ110
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai ordering execution of the decree in O.S. No. 122 of 1931 on an application, E.P. No. 126 of 1944, overruling the objection of the appellant to its executability against the property against which the decree-holder now seeks to execute his decree.2. The lower Court overruled the objections of the appellant on the ground that he could and should have raised his objections in E. A. No. 638 of 1940, a petition to add the present appellant and his brothers as legal representatives of their deceased father, the first defendant in the suit, and to transmit the decree to the Court of the District Munsiff of Tiruvannamalai for concurrent execution. It is conceded by Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar on behalf of the appellant that in an application to transmit, a judgment-debtor must raise any objections he has to the general executability of the decree. He must, for example, plead discharge, or, if the decree is not ...
Thulasi Ammal Vs. Vedavyasachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad359; (1947)1MLJ149
Horwill, J.1. The appellant obtained a decree on 10th November, 1921, in O.S. No. 850 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsiff of Periakulam. The matter was carried in appeal and in second appeal and then again in Letters Patent Appeal. In each Court the appeal was dismissed, the date of the decree in the Letters Patent Appeal being 15th September, 1932. The first Court decreed the suit for possession and future mesne profits for three years from the date of plaint to the date of delivery of possession or until the expiry of three years from the date of decree, whichever event was earlier. The petitioner put in the present application on 19th June, 1942, praying for the attachment and sale of certain immoveable property, for recovery of mesne profits up to 1927, in which year the appellant obtained possession of the suit property, for the costs awarded in the Letters Patent Appeal, and for interest on mesne profits. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court he d that the ap...
P.R. Viswanatha Iyer Vs. A. Muthukumaraswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad139; (1947)1MLJ382
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an alleged breach of copyright in connection with the publication known as the Tinnevelly Vakya Panchangam, which is a Tamil almanac giving information necessary for casting horoscopes, fixing fasts, festivals and ceremonies with reference to the phases of the Moon and other relevant astronomical materials. It is distinguishable from an ordinary almanac in that it is prepared on the basis of calculations based on some 248 Vakyams or aphorisms embodying rules of astrological science. It is common ground that this particular Panchangam has been published for over 60 years from manuscripts furnished by defendant 1 and his father. The publisher was up to 1940 plaintiff 2 in the suit out of which Appeal No. 301 of 1945 arises.2. Defendant 1 then quarrelled with plaintiff 2 and as a result of that quarrel, he entered into an agreement, Ex. p-1, dated 20-2-1941 with plaintiff 1. Under this agreement defendant 1 was to east the almanac known as th...
In Re: Karumuthu Thiagarayan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad325; (1947)1MLJ98
ORDERHappell, J.1. These are petitions to quash proceedings instituted against the petitioners for offences alleged to have been committed in contravention of Rules and Ordinances made under the Defence of India Act. Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar appears for the petitioners in Crl. M.P. No. 1569 of 1946 in which the prosecution was instituted under Rule 18-B, Sub-clause 1(b) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order of 1945. The main argument has been addressed to us on this petition. Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar appears for the petitioners in the other petitions. They relate to prosecutions under different orders, but no separate argument has been addressed to us in respect of these petitions and it is admitted that the same considerations will apply to all the petitions. It has seemed to us, convenient, therefore, to refer throughout to the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order only on the footing that what applies to this order will apply equally to the orders in question in the o...
T.K. Verghese Vaidyar Vs. Rex (Sub-inspector of Police) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ2
Horwill, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Cede, alleging that the petitioner was illegally and improperly detained by the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Calicut and praying that this Court do issue an order for his release.2. The petitioner was arrested without a warrant by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Calicut Town on information received from the Special Inspector of Police, Alleppey. The petitioner was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Calicut, who remanded him to the Sub-Jail, Calicut.3. It is argued that the procedure adopted by the police in the case was not warranted by law. Section 54(7), Criminal Procedure Code, authorises any police officer to arrest without a warrant any person (1) against whom credible information has been received that he has done an Act outside British India, which, if done within British India would be an offence and (2) who, under any law relating to extradition, etc., is liable to be apprehended or detained i...
Annan Narasimha Ayyar Vs. Rangathayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad304; (1946)2MLJ479
Yahya Ali, J.1. This matter arises out of maintenance proceedings under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The husband is the petitioner and he seeks to set aside the Order 8f maintenance made against him to pay the respondent, his wife, a monthly allowace of Rs. 15 as from 29th June, 1946. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that himself and the respondent have been living by mutual consent separately for a period of seventeen years. The respondent says that the period is only twelve years. It is not necessary to resolve the difference as by mere separate living it cannot be said that the married status between the husband and the wife has come to an end. Sub-section 4 of Section 488 provides that the wife will not be entitled to maintenance if the parties have been living separately by mutual consent. Mutual consent involves the consent of both parties and if any one of them decides to put a stop to separate living Sub-section 4 ceases to operate. Then ...
In Re: A.S. Subramanya Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ482
Yahya Ali, J.1. The case brought against the petitioners as gathered from a part of the charge sheet filed in this case is that they committed an offence under Section 216-A, Indian Penal Code. The allegation against them is that, knowing full well that four persons mentioned in the charge sheet had all, along with others committed dacoity on the night of 11th February, 1946, at Tirupati'by forcibly removing the cinema amplifier from police custody and that a case of dacoity had been registered against them and that they were wanted in that case, they harboured those four persons from 16th February, 1946, to March 1946 with food, shelter and money at Tirupati with the intention of screening them from punishment and to make them evade apprehension in P.R. Case Nos. 4 and 5 of 1946. The four persons mentioned in the charge sheet as the individuals who were harboured by the petitioners were tried along with others for offences under Sections 395 and 353, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate ...
B. Subramania Iyer Vs. the Podanur Bank, Limited (In Liquidation), by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ54
Wadsworth, J.1. These appeals arise out of a series of orders directing the Official Liquidator of the Podanur Bank, Ltd., Tiruvadamaruthur, to prosecute the appellant, his co-directors and the Secretary of the Company for offences under the penal provisions of the Indian Companies Act. That the orders in question are appealable under Section 202 of the Indian Companies Act is established so far as this Court is concerned by the decisions in Kesavaloo Naidu v. Murugappa Mudali : (1906)16MLJ537 and Chockalingam v. Official Liquidator : AIR1944Mad87 . The winding up of the Company was ordered by the learned Judge on the Original Side of this Court in January, 1943, and further proceedings were to be in the Court of the District Judge of West Tanjore. On 3rd November, 1943, an application was filed under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act alleging various acts of misfeasance, etc., on the part of the directors and the Secretary and asking the Court to require the respondents to make ...
Manicka Nainar Vs. Murugesa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad331; (1947)1MLJ50
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question here is whether a money decree obtained by the appellant against the respondent in the Court of the District Munsiff of Arni on the 13th September, 1927, is barred by the law of limitation. Between the date of the decree and the 28th of September, 1935, the decree-holder filed on different dates three applications for execution. These applications kept the decree alive. On the 28th September, 1935, he filed a fourth application for execution, which resulted in the District Munsiff ordering the respondent's arrest on the 16th December, 1935. He was liberated at once as he undertook to apply under the provisions of Section 55(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure for adjudication, in insolvency. On the same day he filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, an application for adjudication and on the 20th December, 1935, he was granted interim relief from arrest. Thereupon the District Munsiff dismissed the application for execution. On...
In Re: Mohamed Rahimullah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad461; (1947)1MLJ70
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made in the following circumstances. Kurshid Begum filed an application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband Mohamed Rahimulla for maintenance in M.P. No. 221 of 1945. Maintenance was awarded. On 5th January, 1946, Mohamed Rahimulla filed M.P. No. 6 of 1946, alleging that he had divorced his wife and praying for the cancellation of the order of maintenance made in M.P. No. 221 of 1945, on the ground that she had ceased to be his wife. As it was admitted by Mohamed Rahimulla before the Court that he had not paid the amount of maintenance for the period of Iddat, his application for the cancellation of the order of maintenance was rejected. Against the order of rejection Mohamed Rahimullah filed Crl. R.P. No. 193 of 1946 (Crl. R.C. No. 199 of 1946) in this Court which was dismissed by Kuppuswami Ayyar, J. In dismissing the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »