Chennai Court December 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. Y. Ramachandrayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad329; (1948)1MLJ117
Govinda Menon, J.1. The Public Prosecutor, Madras, appeals against the acquittal of the two respondents of an offence under Section 5(1)(b) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act for having contravened the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules framed under Section 20 (a)(f) of the same Act. The first respondent is the Secretary of the Co-operative Milk Society, Bapatla, and the second respondent, a salesman in that society. The learned Public Prosecutor did not press the case as regards the first respondent and his acquittal has therefore to be confirmed. As regards the second respondent, the case is that on the 19th October, 1946, he sold milk containing 12 per cent. of water to P.W. 1, the sanitary inspector and passed a receipt Ex. P-2. What happened was that when the second respondent was delivering a quantity of milk to one Mr. Venkatasubbayya, the proprietor of Maruthi Vilas Coffee Hotel, Bapatla, P.W. 1., came there, took out a quantity and paid the cost of it to the second r...
The National Sewing Thread Co., Ltd., Carrying on Business in Chidamba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad481; (1948)1MLJ303
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an appeal in a passing off action in the Court of the District Judge of South Arcot. The defendant company against which a decree granting an injunction, ordering an account, and directing the delivery of the offending labels has been passed is the appellant.2. The respondent which is a company registered under the English Companies Act suing by its attorney alleged that it had been for a considerable number of years manufacturing and selling throughout India a sewing thread named 'Eagley' with a distinctive label containing the figure of a bird, that the said device and name had become associated in the minds of the public and the traders with sewing thread made by the plaintiff and that the defendant put on the market for sale sewing thread with a label bearing the representation of a bird and the name 'Eagle brand' and that such use is calculated to deceive the trade and the public into the belief that when purchasing the defendant's goods they are pur...
In Re: T.M. Sivaprakasam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad292; (1948)1MLJ21
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is an application to quash the charge framed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam, in C.C. No. 47 of 1947, wherein a charge under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the petitioner.2. The short facts leading up to this prosecution are that the petitioner sent a communication to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, alleging that the Village Munsiff of Patteeswaram had received illegal gratification from one Thanu Kothan, an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and this complaint on investigation was found to be absolutely groundless. Thereupon a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. After having examined the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional First Class Magistrate has framed the charge under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.3. In the statement filed by the petitioner, he objected to the jurisdiction of tha...
Gujju Annapurnamma and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee, High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ465
Clark, J.1. The two insolvents are brothers and were adjudicated in February 1946. They are members of a family which carried on business on a large scale at Rajahmundry in the East Godavari district as timber dealers, money lenders etc. In the books of this family business amounts appear to have been deposited by close relatives of the insolvents. The earliest books available to the Official Assignee are those for the year 1917 and the latest those for the year 1929. I understand that the books for one or two years between 1917 and 1929 are missing The Official Assignee is satisfied that these deposits were made and that the entries in the books of account evidencing them are genuine. Accordingly he has accepted the entries of such deposits as sufficient evidence that moneys to that extent were deposited by the several depositor relatives on the dates and the amounts shown in the books of account. In some cases, the first books of account available those for 1917 show an amount carrie...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Nelliappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ23
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the accused when he committed the murder was by reason of the unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing that he was doing an act which was contrary to law and hence has held that he was not guilty. This order was passed under Section 470, Criminal Procedure Code and the consequential order necessary under Section 471(1) had therefore to be issued. The accused was ordered to be detained in the custody of his father-in-law and brother. The learned Public Prosecutor seeks to revise this order of detention on the ground that it does not conform to the provisions of the section. In Legal Remembrancer v. Srish Chandra Roy I.L.R.(1928) Cal.208 a bench of that (Calcutta) Court has laid down that 'detained in safe custody' in Section 471 does not mean detained in the custody of the relatives. Kumaraswami Sastri,J., in Mahommad v. Emperor (1921) 42 M.L.J. 72 was of the view that Section 471 should not be interpreted as compelling ...
Yangalasetti Thirupathaiah Vs. Kopalle Mangapathi Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ269
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner was the first defendant in O.S. No. 571 of 1944, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Guntur, the suit being one for a decla-ration that the suit plot of land was trust property, that its alienation by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant was void and for a consequent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rightful possession of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed. In appeal by the petitioner (the first defendant), the learned District Judge found that the proper Court-fee to be paid would be for two separate declarations with one consequential relief by way of injunction. He was also dissatisfied with the value placed upon the site and directed the appointment of a commissioner at the petitioner's expense to ascertain the value.2. I have no doubt that the learned District Judge was right in holding that two independent declarations were asked for and that separate fees will have to be paid; for it would not...
S.K. Ramaswami Goundan Vs. S.N.P. Subbaraya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad388; (1948)1MLJ215
Happell, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment in appeal of the District Judge of Coimbatore, dated the 31st March, 1945, confirming the judgment and decree, dated the 11th April, 1944, of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 130 of 1943. The suit out of which the appeal arises, O.S. No. 130 of 1943, was brought for redemption of the suit properties on the footing of a mortgage, Ex. P-3, dated 4th June, 1850, executed by one Samanna Goundan in favour of one Krishna Ayyar and one Venkataramana Ayyar and three other persons. Kandaswami Goundan, an undivided son of Samanna Goundan, sold the equity of redemption in the suit properties to the plaintiff on the 29th September, 1938, for Rs. 100. The suit has some remarkable features. Nothing is heard of the suit mortgage between the alleged date of the execution of Ex. P-3, 4th June, 1850, and the sale to the plaintiff on 29th September, 1938. The suit properties, however, had been frequently dealt with by way of mortgage and sa...
K.V. Narayanan Nair Vs. T.P. Kesava Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad361; (1948)1MLJ263
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises is for a declaration that the lease granted by the second defendant, the karnavan, to the first defendant on the nth January, 1934, is not binding on the Idom and for possession of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff is the receiver appointed in a partition suit, O.S. No. 402 of 1938, between the members of the Idom. The lease comprises 132 acres of forest land and purports to be a reclamation lease for a period of 12 years. It fixes a rent of 5 paras of paddy per year and a renewal fee of Rs. 25. The ground on which the plaintiff seeks to attack the lease is that though it purports to be a reclamation lease, it is not really so but that it is merely a lease of a forest at a very low rent in the guise of a reclamation lease.2. The Courts below have held that the lease does not bind the Idom as the lease was not a reclamation lease, but it was so mentioned in the lease as a pretext for alienating forest tr...
P. Thirumal Nadar Vs. Pichai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad349; (1948)1MLJ364
Rajamannar, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., dismissing an appeal from the Additional Judge of the City Civil Court at Madras. The suit was instituted by the first respondent herein for partition of the properties in suit consisting of two items of immoveable property and for delivery to her of one share thereof, the other share to be delivered to the second defendant. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the daughters of the first defendant by his first wife, one Marimuthu Ammal, who died on the 19th February, 1943. The suit was brought on the basis that the two items of immoveable property belonged absolutely to Marimuthu Ammal, and on her death, devolved in equal shares on her two daughters, the plaintiff and the second defendant. The first defendant, the father, contested the suit and claimed that Marimuthu Ammal, his deceased wife, had no title to either of the properties.2. The case for the plaint...
Nalluri Subbarayudu Vs. Ranpati Ramanaiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ181
Yahya Ali, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the first respondent for a permanent injunction, but subsequently the plaint was amended so as to convert it into one for possession and in the alternative for partition and separate possession of the suit property. The facts that have been found by the Courts below are these. The second and third defendants are brothers who owned, among other properties, land measuring 8 acres and 96 cents. The second defendant is the elder of the two and he was residing in the village. The third defendant was employed in Government service and at the material time he was the Head Accountant in the Revenue Department at Guntur. They constituted an undivided family, although at one time an attempt was made to set up a case that they were divided. The senior brother, the second defendant, was the manager, although, here again, an attempt was made to claim that the younger brother, the third defendant, was managing the properties. In 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »