Chennai Court November 1947 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.
The Public Prosecutor Vs. S.M. Vellaiya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ413
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent of an offence under the District Municipalities Act with which he was charged. On 14th February, 1946, the notice, Ex. P-5, was issued to him under Section 216(1) and (2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act indicating certain defects in construction that were noted during the inspection of his house which were said to be in contravention of the building rules. He was called upon to rectify these defects within a week from the date of the receipt of the notice and was warned that action including prosecution would be taken under the provisions of the Act. Section 216 contemplates that along with this provisional order a notice also should be issued requiring the owner to show cause within a reasonable time to be named in the said notice why the order should not be confirmed and under Sub-section 3 of that section if the owner fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the executive a...
Abdul Nabhi Saheb Vs. Marti Ramalakshmammah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad371
Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal by leave from the decision of Rajamannar J. pursuant to Clause 15, Letters Patent of this Court.2. The relevant facts can shortly be stated. The plaintiff, appellant here, instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Guntur. At the trial, it was dismissed as being not maintainable on some preliminary objection, the merits not having been considered. That dismissal was set aside upon appeal by the plaintiff to the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur who on 31st January 1947 directed the suit to be remanded for disposal by the learned District Munsif. Shortly thereafter, defendant 7, respondent before us, preferred an application for review to the learned Subordinate Judge. The grounds of review manifest clearly and unequivocably that the application was for the purpose of setting aside the whole of the previous order and decree of the Subordinate Judge directing the suit to be tried. No other relief is found to be contained in the application...
Shah Banmul Soanmul Vs. Shah Harakchand Roopchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ256
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of Lakshmana Rao, J., who dismissed an appeal in execution against the order of the learned Chief Judge of the City Civil Court. The subject-matter of the application in execution was an order for possession to be delivered which was made pursuant to the provisions of the Madras House Rent Contol Order, 1945. The appellant is the tenant of No. 28, Govindappa Naick Street, Madras, in respect of which an order, to which reference is made below, for possession was passed.2. The relevant facts are the following: Under the provisions of the Madras Rent Control Order, the landlord, who is the respondent before us, made an application for an order for possession to be given to him, to the Rent Controller. On January 31, 1946, that application was dismissed. An appeal by the landlord against the dismissal was preferred to the Collector who, when the Control Order was in force was the appellate authority. That...
Ramarathnam Vs. the Corporation of Madras by Its Licence Inspector, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad300; (1948)1MLJ415
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for having been in possession of machinery and for having used it for industrial purposes without a licence as required under Section 287 of the Madras City Municipal Act read with Schedule VI and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 under Section 357 of the Act read with Schedule VII. The question raised by Mr. Kasturi in attacking the validity of the conviction is that the particular instrument that was used in the present case was not machinery and that it was not used for industrial purposes.2. The petitioner is a dealer in radio sets having his shop in Mount Road which Is a D.C. area. He also executes repairs to radio sets of both A.C. and D.C. make. Since his shop is served by direct current he cannot test the A.C sets without the help of a converter; he is therefore using an electric converter for the purpose of converting D.C. current into A.G. to test A.C. sets. The question is whether an electric converter is machinery and wheth...
K. Murugappa Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Kuppuswani Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1947
Reported in: 1949CriLJ235
ORDERYahya Ali J.1. This is an application to revise an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C., made by the Stationary Sub. Magistrate, Conjeevaram in respect of the performance of Soorasamharam festival before the Mohambariamman temple in Ayyampet, a suburb of Conjeevaram. The festival comes off on the 18th of this month and in view of the fact that the petitioners had been restrained by similar orders in the preceding years from performing the festival, they applied sufficiently early with a view to get orders from the Magistrate and if the orders went against them to obtain remedy by way of revision from this Court. He found on the basis of a report from the Circle Inspector of Police that if the petitioners are permitted to perform the festival first before the counter petitioners, there may be breach of the peace. Consequently, the Magistrate passed orders under Section 144, Criminal P. C, fixing two different periods of time on 18th November 1947 when either party should per-for...
K. Murugappa Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Kuppuswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ458
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is an application to revise an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, made by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Conjeeveram in respect of the performance of Soorasamharam festival before the Mohambariamman Temple in Ayyampet, a suburb of Conjeeveram. The festival comes off on the 18th of this month and in view of the fact that the petitioners had been restrained by similar orders in the preceding years from performing the festival, they applied sufficiently early with a view to get orders from the Magistrate and if the orders went against them to obtain remedy by way of revision from this Court. The application was disposed of by the Magistrate on 9th October, 1947. He found on the basis of a report from the Circle Inspector of Police that if the petitioners are permitted to perform the festival first before the counter-petitioners, there may be breach of the peace. Consequently, the Magistrate passed orders under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, ...
Vithalji Madhavji Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ24
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is a case stated, at the instance of the assessees, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal pursuant to Section 21 of the Indian Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, (hereinafter called ' the Act') which incorporated in the Act the provisions of Section 61 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Two questions, of law are referred to the Court, namely.(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case the Bench was right in holding that the appeal from an order by the Excess Profits Tax Officer lay to the Tribunal only?(2) Whether the tribunal was right in the circumstances of this case in holding that the appeal filed by the Appellants against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was misconceived and whether the consequent dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal was right in law?2. The case requires elucidation of the meaning and effect of some provisions of the Act, the relevant portions of which it is convenient to set out. They are the following:Sectio...
In Re: Rm.N.V. Viswanathan Chettiar and ors. of Uma and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad496; (1948)1MLJ241
ORDERClark, J.1. I am satisfied that the issue of summonses in these matters is governed by Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act empowers the Court to summon before it,Any person known or suspected to have in his possession any property belonging to the insolvent, or supposed to be indebted to the insolvent or any person whom the Court may deem capable of giving information respecting the insolvent, his dealings or property.2. Section 37 provides that in such cases the Court,Shall have the same powers to issue commissions and letters of request for the examination on commission or otherwise of any person liable to examination under Section 36, as it has for the exami-nation of witnesses under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.3. In Original Side Appeal No. 30 of 1917 Judgment delivered in the case of Murugappa Chetty and Company v. The Official Assignee of Madras, O.S.A. No. 30 of 1917 by Wallis. C.J. and Oldfield, J.--This appeal ...
M.A.C. Arunachala Mudali and anr. Vs. Rajagopala Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ389
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs-decree-holders have preferred this appeal against the order of the District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore dismissing the execution petition filed by them on the ground that it was barred by limitation after setting aside the order of the learned District Munsiff of Tiruppattur allowing execution to proceed. The plaintiffs obtained a final decree in O.S. No. 337 of 1934 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Tiruppattur on foot of a mortgage. The final decree is dated 30th November, 1937. 'The property comprised in the mortgage is situate in Kalliyur village in Gudiyattam Taluk. By reason of the reshuffling of the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts the plaintiffs thought that the property was within the jurisdiction of the District Munsiff's Court of Vellore, and filed on 4th January, 1938, the first execution application, No. 15 of 1938 which was ordered on 7th January, 1938, but nothing further was done in pursuance of the orde...
Thumala Ayyalureddi Vs. Thumati Mallareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ381
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the fifth defendant from the order of the learned District Judge of Nellore dismissing his appeal against the order of the learned District Munsiff of Kavali in E.A. No. 361 of 1944 in O.S. No. 379 of 1934.2. The plaintiff obtained a decree for partition and for future profits against defendants 1 to 5. On 10th April, 1942, the plaintiff gave up the relief granted under the decree for payment of mesne profits against the fifth defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff attached some properties in E.P. No. 78 of 1940. Then the fifth defendant filed E.A. No. 644 of 1942 claiming that the properties belonged to him and not to the first defendant and were not liable to be sold. This petition was filed by him under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, which was dismissed for default on 12th May, 1943. It was restored on 17th August, 1943, in E.A. No. 520 of 1943, and the original petition was again dismissed for default on 13th November, 1943. The property...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »