Chennai Court April 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: M. Muniswami Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad430; (1947)1MLJ36
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No. 28 of 1945, on the file of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Vellore. He was tried along with another who was the first accused. They were both members of a joint Hindu family, being cousins, and they were engaged in rice trade. The prosecution case was that they traded without a licence and therefore violated Clause 3 of the Food Grains Control Order, 1942, and sold rice in excess of 20 maunds in a single transaction. Their defence was that they were members of a joint Hindu family and the second accused was only helping in the trade and that they did not commit any offence. The first Court found both the accused guilty on the ground that the licence was issued only in the name of the first accused and not in the name of both. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot acquitted the first accused because there was a licence in his name and ordered a re-trial as against the second accused...
K.V. Thangavelu Vs. the Court of Wards and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad38; (1946)2MLJ143
1. Krishna Vijia Poochayya Naicker who was the last zamindar of Marungapuri, an impartible estate situated in the District of Trichinopoly, died on 17th September, 1926, leaving him surviving three widows and a daughter by a predeceased wife, besides four sons and one daughter who claim to be his illegitimate issue by a permanently kept concubine. On his death disputes arose as to succession to the zamindari which is descendible to a single heir in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904,. and the Court of Wards, after making enquiries, recognised the senior widow as the proprietor and assumed control and management of the estate on her behalf on 23rd July, 1927.2. In February, 1938, proceedings were commenced in forma pauperis in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Trichinopoly, by the alleged illegitimate sons, the eldest of whom sought possession of the zamindari and partition and delivery of an eighth share in the partible properties left by the za...
In Re: Kalyanasundara Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad247; (1946)2MLJ241
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Coimbatore, convicting the petitioners under Section 177(5) of the Indian Companies Act and sentencing the first accused to pay a fine of Rs. 50 with one month's simple imprisonment in default, and the second accused to pay a fine of Rs. 25 with two weeks simple imprisonment in default.2. These arise out of proceedings in connection with the winding up of a company known as the Kandagoundanchavadi Balachandra Ganesa Nidhi, Limited. There was a voluntary winding up of the company in 1934. A resolution was passed on 7th January, 1934, which was confirmed on 27th January, 1934. The first accused who was the Secretary was appointed the liquidator, and the second accused was also appointed as an additional liquidator. There was a third liquidator also whose whereabouts are not known. In 1936, it is stated, both the accused resigned their offices as liquidators. On 13th November, 19...
In Re: Polisetti Govinda Rao of Ellore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad223; (1946)2MLJ407
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a case in which the manager of the factory has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 for having obstructed the Additional Inspector of Factories from entering the factory premises. My attention is not drawn to any evidence to indicate that the petitioner himself obstructed or that he asked any others to obstruct. No claim can be made under Section 71 of the Indian Factories Act throwing the burden on the petitioner to show that any other person obstructed, because Section 63 clearly indicates that there must be a wilful obstruction. If it was wilful obstruction then the petitioner himself must have been present and obstructed. Since there is no evidence to show that he obstructed, the petitioner has to be acquitted. The conviction and sentence are accordingly set aside and the petitioner is acquitted....
The Official Receiver of Ramnad, Representing the Estate of at.K.Pl.Sp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad34; (1946)2MLJ132
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in proceedings instituted for the execution of a decree passed by the Rangoon High Court and transferred for execution to the District Court of Ramnad before the separation of Burma from India on the 1st April, 1937. The appeal calls for the consideration of Order 21, Rule 16, Section 44-A, and Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. On the 27th July, 1931, the original side of the Rangoon High Court passed a decree in favour of the AT. K.PL.SP. Chettiar firm against two defendants, the K.S.R.M. Chettiar firm and the N. P. A. K. Chettiar firm. The proprietor of the N.P.A.K. Chettiar firm was one Muthiah Chettiar. On appeal the Appellate Side of the Rangoon High Court held that the K.S.R. M. Chettiar firm was. not liable, but confirmed the decree in so far as it affected the N. P. A. K. Chettiar firm. The appellate decree was passed on the nth May, 1933, and was for the ...
Nanjappa Goundan Vs. Pacha Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ276
Somayya, J.1. The sixth defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The appealraises the question of contribution under Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act. One Chinna Goundan executed a mortgage for Rs. 9,000 over some immovable properties. He paid a sum of Rs. 4,000 and there was a sum of Rs. 5,000 due. The mortgagee's right was purchased by one Muthuswami Goundan and Muthuswami Goundan filed a suit O.S. No. 205 of 1938 on the file of the Sub-Court at Coimbatore. A mortgage decree was passed. The original mortgagor had been adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No. 180 of 1933, and so the Official Receiver was made a party to Muthuswami's suit O.S. No. 205 of 1938. The plaintiff in the present action had purchased one-fifth share of the original mortgagor Sinna Goundan from the Official Receiver in the year 1935 and was impleaded in that capacity in O.S. No. 205 of 1938. The decree was subsequently scaled down as regards the present plaintiff who was the ninth defendant in that ...
V. Madhava Rao Naidu Vs. Sri Gangadeswarar Temple by Trustees Sabapath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad125; (1946)2MLJ285
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the auction purchaser of theright, title and interest of one Ponnuswami in the property in suit, and claims the benefit of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act of 1921. Ponnuswami admittedly was a tenant of only a portion of the land in suit. The total area measures 5-5/6 grounds. Both the City Civil Court and Somayya, J., on appeal held that the tenancy only applied to 3 grounds 1,350 square feet, which meant that the appellant was certainly a trespasser so far as the rest of the area was concerned. Ponnuswami denied his landlord's title and therefore the landlord was entitled to terminate his tenancy, which was done by a notice given to him on 10th September, 1936. He was informed that unless he vacated and delivered vacant possession of the land within three days of the receipt of the notice, proceedings in ejectment would be taken against him. The appellant's purchase of the right, title and interest of Ponnuswami took place two ...
Edavalath Cherunni Alias Pennukutty Amma and anr. Vs. Maramittath ther ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad208; (1946)2MLJ266
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. In this case the respondent obtained a decree for arrears of rent and interest due under a kaichit dated 9th May, 1927, before the Madras Agriculturists'Relief Act was passed. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 170 towards the decree and for the balance the properties were brought to sale and actually sold in November, 1937. After the Act was passed a petition to set aside the sale was filed under Section 23. The sale was accordingly set aside. Thereupon the appellant applied for relief under Section 15 of the Act, by means of two petitions depositing separately the rent due for faslis 1346 and 1347 respectively. The amounts deposited were found to be correct and the prayers in those petitions, namely, that the amounts deposited should be accepted in full satisfaction of the rents due in respect of the two faslis, were granted. The appellants then filed the petition out of which the present appeal arises under Section 19 of the Act, praying that the entire arrears o...
Addepalli Venkatarama Ayya Vs. Sait Khial Dass Topandoss by Power of A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1946
Reported in: (1901)11MLJ1
Shahabuddin, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 24 of 1939 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada filed on the 27th January, 1945, an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside a sale held in execution of the decree in that suit. He alleged that there was no proper publication and that the decree-holder had colluded with one of the defendants and had the properties knocked down for a low price. To this application he did not make the auction purchaser a party. On 3rd April, 1945, he filed a petition for permission to amend the application by impleading the auction purchaser. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that it had been filed beyond thirty days from the date of the sale ; and on the same day he dismissed the main application on the ground that the auction purchaser was not made a party to it and that, therefore, the application did not lie. The second defendant has filed this civil mis...
In Re: Reference from Tinnevelly Sessions
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ243
ORDER1. Three persons were charged by the committing Magistrate both with murder and with theft in a building. When the matter came before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Judge purported to act upon the suggestion contained in Rule 156 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, separated the charges under Sections 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded only with the trial under Section 302. He convicted the first and third accused and acquitted the second accused. The two convicted accused appealed to this Court; but before the appeal was heard, the Public Prosecutor withdrew the charge under section' 380 against the appellants and they were acquitted. In appeal, this Court held that it had not been proved that the third accused was guilty of murder. In its judgment, however, it indicated that it would have convicted the third accused under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code had it not been for the circumstance that she had already been acquitted of the charge under Section 380,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »