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.
K. Ranganatham Chetty Vs. Koppulu Kanakaratnammah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1947
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ189
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for specific performance of an agreement, dated the 12th August, 1943, to grant a lease of premises No. 1/90, Godown Street, Madras, for a period of 26 months at a monthly rental of Rs. 85. There was also a claim for damages which were alleged to amount to Rs. 10,000. The learned Judge dismissed the suit, and this is the plaintiff's appeal against the learned Judge's decision.2. It is necessary to refer to a few facts, although our task has been greatly lightened by Mr. Narasimha Aiyar, learned Counsel for the appellant, who has quite properly drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of law and has greatly shortened the time of disposal of this appeal.3. The first defendant is the owner of the premises. By exchange of letters between them, each dated the 12th August, 1943, the first defendant agreed to lease to the plaintiff the premises in suit for a period of 26 months as soon as the second defendant,...
United Brokers Vs. Alagappa Corporation by Sole Proprietor Dr. Sir Rm. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ178
Rajamannar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents to compel the appellants to specifically perform certain agreements to deliver in all 700 shares of Steel Corporation of Bengal, Limited, or in the alter-native to recover from the appellants a sum of Rs. 13,506-4-0 being the estimated damages on account of the appellants' failure to perform the contracts entered into by them. There was also a claim for a sum of Rs. 612-8-0, the dividend which had accrued on the shares; but this claim was disallowed and the plaintiffs have not chosen to appeal against the disallowance. There is also no dispute in regard to another sum of Rs. 484- 6-0 claimed by the respondents from the appellants.2. In May 1945 the defendants who were carrying on business as stock and share-brokers sold and agreed to deliver to the respondents described as Alagappa Cor-poration by its sole proprietor, Dr. Sir RM. Alagappa Chettiar in all 700 shares of the Steel Corporation of Bengal, Limited, ...
In Re: Venkoba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad358; (1948)1MLJ121
Happell, J.1. Criminal Revision Case No. 732 of 1947 arises out of the con-viction of six persons by the' Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for an offence under Sections 45 and 46 of the Madras City Police Act. Each of the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, or in default to undergo two weeks' rigorous imprisonment. The petition has been filed by the 1st accused.2. On 22nd October, 1946, a Sub-Inspector of the Madras Police obtained a warrant from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, and in pursuance of it, entered No. 7, Vaikunta Vadhyar Street and conducted a search. According to the evidence, he found the six accused playing cards for money in a room in a house which belonged to the first accused, and he seized the cards with which they were playing and some cash. Section 42 of the Madras City Police Act which, it may be stated here, is equivalent to Section 5 of the Madras Gaming Act of 1930, provides that:(1) If the Commissioner has reason to believe th...
R.M.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. Trojan and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad446; (1948)1MLJ173
Bell, J.1. In this appeal the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit, sought to recover damages on the ground that the defendants had maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause presented a petition in insolvency against him, as the result of which on 5th October, 1937, he was adjudicated insolvent. He says he was not able to obtain annulment of his adjudication until 21st February, 1944. Kunhi Raman, J., dismissed the suit holding in the first place that it was barred by limitation. He came also to the conclusion that want of reasonable and probable cause had not been satisfactorily proved. Even so he held that there was no evidence of malice and finally was of the opinion that the plaintiff on the evidence was entitled to no more than nominal damages.2. The plaintiff has been pressed before us as a well-to-do man of the Chettiar community and of good character and reputation. It is stated that in a partition somewhere about 1933 between himself and his brothers he rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›