Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Asuram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ413
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The 13 accused before Court who were trading as partners in stationery articles and other sundry articles have been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for an offence punishable under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance.2. The case against them was that they had stock of camphor and refused to sell when two customers came and wanted to purchase it. The appellants' case is that they were not dealers in camphor, that therefore they told the customers that they were not dealing in camphor and had no stock for sale. Evidence has been let in that in a room in which they had their stock, camphor was found in some unopened packets. The appellants admitted that two persons came and asked for camphor and that they told them that they had no camphor for sale as they were not dealing in it. There is no evidence to show that the appellants were dealers in camphor. The word ' dealer ' has been defined under Section 2 (d) o...
T.K. Abdul Razack Ravuthar and ors. Vs. Mahammad Hanif Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad59; (1946)2MLJ113
Happell, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 64 of 1944 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Udumalpet. The petitioner in the lower Court was permitted by the Court to withdraw that suit under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The terms in which the order allowing the petitioner to withdraw his suit was passed were these : The District Munsiff first of all set out quite fully the reasons given by the petitioner in support of his prayer for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and then he gave, also quite fully, the objections to this course put forward by the defendants; but, having set out the contentions of both the parties, he said nothing more than ' petition allowed.'2. It is argued for the defendants-petitioners that it was imperative for the District Munsiff to have given reasons for his order. In my opinion the contention is well-founded. The terms of Order 23, Rule 1(2) of the Code themselves m...
N.P. Ganapathy Naicker and ors. Vs. A.M. Govindarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad70; (1946)2MLJ217
Yahya Ali, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application made by the petitioners herein, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore to accept the security tendered by them and to permit them to file fair bonds. With the details of the matter itself we are not concerned. It is sufficient to mention that, when an application was made in the second appeal arising out of a suit, for stay of execution of the decree, this Court ordered that the petitioners should furnish security to the satisfaction of the lower Court within one week of the reopening of that Court after the summer recess. The draft security bond, prepared on plain unstamped papers, was filed on the day when the Court of the Subordinate Judge reopened after the summer recess. It took some time for getting it tested, with the result that the week's time given in the order of this Court elapsed. But the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition, holding that it was incumbent upon the petitioners to file ...
Anthony Salvador Dias Vs. A. Sivarama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad435; (1947)1MLJ231
Happell, J.1. The question in this civil revision petition relates to the court-fee payable on O.S. No. 239 of 1944, brought by the petitioner in the Court of the District Munsiff of Mangalore. The petitioner on 1st September, 1932, executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the respondent, the sum secured by the mortgage being Rs. 2,575. The petitioner brought the suit now in question for redemption of the mortgage and paid court-fee oh the principal sum secured, namely, Rs. 2,575, under Section 7, Clause (ix) of the Court-Fees Act. Almost the whole of the mortgage money was retained with the respondent to pay debts due by the petitioner to respondent himself and other creditors. In the body of the plaint the petitioner alleges that owing to delay on the part of the respondent in paying the debts for which the consideration for the mortgage was retained by him, a suit had been filed against the petitioner; insolvency proceedings had been instituted against him and he had been arres...
The Governor-general of India in Council, Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad64; (1946)2MLJ65
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case is the Governor-General of India in Council. On the 6th June, 1944 the respondent instituted in the Court of the District Munsiff of Mangalore a suit for damages for short delivery of goods consigned to him from Calicut by the South Indian Railway Company Ltd. On the 1st April, 1944 the Government of India took over the South Indian Railway and relief could then only be granted against the Governor-General of India in Council. The respondent applied for leave to amend his plaint by adding the Governor-General of India in Council as the second defendant, and his application was granted; but he gave no notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Having been added as a party, the Governor-General of India in Council contended that the suit did not lie because the requisite notice had not been given. This objection was overruled by the District Munsiff who on the authority of the judgment of Devadoss, J., in Great India...
In Re: Neeladri Appadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad243; (1946)2MLJ169
Shahabuddin, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam. in respect of C.A. Nos. 132 and 154 of 1945, in his Court, which were filed by the respondents against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Vizianagaram in M.C. No. 38 of 1945 on his file. In that case, it was alleged that the respondents were persons coming under Clauses (a) and (f) of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that they should be called upon to furnish security for good behaviour. The Magistrate believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and directed the respondents to execute bonds in the sum of Rs. 100 with two sureties each, and as they failed to do so, he committed them to prison to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. C. A. No. 132 of 1945 against this order was received from jail on nth October, 1945, and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed it summarily under Section 421 on the 19th October, 1945. On the 23rd November, the other appeal was presented i...
A.E. Subramania Ayyar Vs. S.S. Ramaswami Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ395
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This matter was decided against the appellant in the Courts below on a technicality. When the facts are fully understood, we are of the opinion that there is no reason why the technicality should prevail and that on the merits the decision should be in favour of the appellant.2. The first respondent obtained a money-decree against the appellant in the Court of Small Causes, Madras and in execution proceedings in the City Civil Court attached a house belonging to the appellant. The first respondent holds a mortgage over this property as security for a loan of Rs. 1,000 granted by him to the appellant. The first respondent asked that the property be sold subject to his mortgage. It was sold on this condition on the 27th April, 1944 and was bought by the second respondent, who is the paternal uncle of the first respondent. The amount payable under the money decree was Rs. 217-12-6.3. The City Civil Court closed for the summer vacation on the 1st May, 1944...
Kadir Bibi and ors. Vs. M.V. Mailappa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad542; (1946)2MLJ82
1. This appeal is concerned with the interpretation of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. On the 30th January, 1929 the tenth defendant executed a usufructuary mortgage of the land in suit in favour of the husband of the first defendant and the father of the second, third and fourth defendants to secure the sum of Rs. 7,000. The mortgagee died before the institution of the action. The mortgage deed provided that the mortgagor should have the right of redemption after the expiry of the period of three years and three months from the date of the deed. Obviously the three months were added to the three years in order that the right of redemption should fall within the fallow period. The deed further provided that if the mortgagor did not redeem on the date contemplated by the deed, he should have the right of redemption by paying the amount secured on the 30th Panguni (12th April) of any subsequent year. On the 10th July, 1942, the plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption a...
Kr.Rm.Sm.Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. K.Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar Alias S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad57; (1946)2MLJ114
Happell, J.1. The question in this civil revision petition relates to the court-fee payable in respect of a suit filed by the petitioner, O.S. No. 247 of 1942, in the Court of the District Munsiff of Devakottah. The substantial plaint prayers are (1) To declare that the sale deed dated 31st July, 1937, executed by the plaintiff in the name of the first defendant and relating to the plaint property is a nominal and sham transaction and that the first defendant had no title to the property covered by the said sale deed and (2) to grant an injunction restraining defendants 5 and 6 from bringing the property to sale in execution of a decree. The petitioner valued his suit for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 500 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 56-3-0 under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act. The amount for which the sale deed in respect of which the declaration was sought in the plaint was executed is Rs. 6,000 and the District Munsiff held that the value of the suit was more than R...
Gedela Atchayya and ors. Vs. Koppisetti Appalaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad109; (1946)2MLJ233
ORDERChandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. Original Suit No. 204 of 1929 was a suit to recover possession of a site from defendants 1 to 3, to have a street restored, and for the payment of a sum of Rs. 50 as damages for the year 1928. The plaint was presented on 13th July, 1929. There was a decree in favour of the plaintiffs on 17th August, 1931, directing defendants 1 to 3 to remove the enclosure around the site that they had put up and to put the plaintiffs in possession of it so that it might be available for communal user of the plaintiffs and the defendants; the street was to be restored to its original condition, and defendants 1 to 3 were directed to pay the plaintiffs Rs. 30 as damages for the year 1928. There was no claim for mesne profits subsequent to 1928 and the decree awarded none. The decree-holders applied to the District Munsiff in I.A. No. 221 of 1943 for the ascertainment of future mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code and for a decree for the amount that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »