Chennai Court March 1947 Judgments
In Re: P.R. Krishnaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad162; (1947)2MLJ180
ORDERClark, J.1. The late Sri P. Rajagopalachari held ten shares in this Company in respect of which there was Rs. 300 due as uncalled capital. He died early in 1940 and admittedly his father P. Ramanujachari was his sole heir and legal representative. The latter died in December, 1940 and admittedly his heirs and legal representatives were the present applicant, and his brothers, Parthasarathy and Seshadri. The Official Liquidator had notified the applicant that his name has been placed on the list of contributories in respect of these shares standing on the register of the company in the name of the late P. Rajagopalachari. The present application is for the removal of his name from the list.2. Mr. Gopalratnam who appears for the applicant submits that his client's name cannot properly be included in the list as he is not an heir or legal representative of Mr. Rajagopalachari. He relies on, Section 160 of the Companies Act and also on Section 50 and Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Parameswara Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad428; (1947)2MLJ71
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent in C.C. No. 1318 of 1946 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Periyakulam. The respondent was charged with having in his possession and having sold ' jilebi' which was adulterated with 20 per cent. of fat not derived from milk or cream.2. Rule 28-B of the Rules framed under Section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act provides that where in any hotel, sweetmeats of which ghee is commonly an ingredient are for sale and are prepared wholly or in part with a mixture with other articles contemplated in Rule 28 or with any oil or fat other than ghee, it is imperative upon the person in charge of the hotel to exhibit in such hotel one or more notices specifying in the vernacular of the district that sweetmeats are not made of ghee. An infringement of this rule entails punishment under Rule 29.3. It has been found as a fact that in the present case the 'jilebi' seized conta...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.K.M.C. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. Sinnappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad130; (1947)2MLJ157
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff who in the appellant in this second appeal sued to recover possession of three survey numbers 1126, 1131 and 1152/B alleging that he had purchased them on 7th April, 1930, at a sale in execution of a simple money decree in O.S. No. 363 of 1929 which he had obtained against defendants 1 and 2 and that though he got possession there was a subsequent trespass by the defendants. Defendants 4 to 6 and 10 who are impleaded as purchasers contested the suit and pleaded that for arrears of loan due to Government the properties were brought to sale and the fourth defendant purchased Nos. 1126 and 1131 and got possession. Subsequently he made alienations.2. The claim against S. No. 1127 was given up by the plaintiff. The District Munsiff gave the plaintiff a decree for possession of S. Nos. 1131 and 1152/B. As regards 1126, he held that the plaintiff's right had become extinguished by reason of the sale held under the Land Improvements Loans Act.. On appea...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Mudaliar Vs. the Province of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad443; (1947)2MLJ146
ORDERFrederick William Gentle, C.J.1. The petitioner is the tenant of a portion of the premises No. 10, Francis Joseph Street, George Town, Madras, of which the second respondent is the landlord and to which the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1945 (hereinafter called 'the Control Order') applied. Pursuant to the provisions of the Control Order, on 16th July, 1946 the second respondent applied for eviction of the petitioner to the Rent Controller who made an order on 15th August, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner appealed to the Collector of Madras against this order; the hearing before the Collector was concluded on September 30, when judgment was reserved ; on19th October, judgment was delivered upholding the order of the Controller and dismissing the appeal. On 12th November, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Provincial Government, under the provisions of Clause 8(2-A) of the Control Order. On 16th January, 1947, by Memorandum No. 870...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venugopal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad39; (1947)2MLJ164
ORDERYahay Ali, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner who was accused 2 in C. C No. 278 of 1945 on the file of the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Saidapet, under Section 3 (1) of the Madras Food Grains Control Order read with Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules. The trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300 in default to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and) sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Chingleput. The petitioner was found actually transporting 8 carts containing 86 bags of paddy, each bag holding 64 Madras measures, along the public highway without a permit as required under the rules. P.W. 6, the Special Deputy Tahsildar for procurement of grains at Trivellore intercepted him on the spot, held an enquiry and recorded; from the petitioner a statement marked as Ex. E. He also recorded similar statements (Ex. D) from the cart drivers, ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Komarappa Goundan Vs. S. Ramaswamy Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad150; (1947)1MLJ365
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is an application for stay of the trial of O.S. No. 32 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, pending the disposal of S.A. No. 2081 of 1946 of this Court. In the counter filed by the respondent an objection was taken that the application is not maintainable as there is no appeal in this Court with reference to any proceeding in the suit sought to be stayed. I have examined this aspect of the matter in my judgment in Balaji Rao v. Natesa Chetty : (1947)1MLJ330 and relying on a number of cases cited therein I have come to the conclusion that if certain conditions are satisfied there can be no question that the trial of an independent suit can be stayed by this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the course of other proceedings pending before it. The conditions to be satisfied would be firstly the two pre-requisites mentioned in Section 151 of the Code itself, namely, that the stay has to be order...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Appavoo Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad369; (1947)1MLJ367
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The first contention put forward by Mr. Chandra Reddi in this case for the defence is that the prosecution is barred under Section 53 of the District Police Act as it was beyond three months after the act complained of. The act complained of was that the police officer conducted the investigation in this particular case in a perfunctory manner. This complaint was made in a communication that was addressed by the petitioner to the District Superintendent of Police, Trichinopoly. On the wrapper it was superscribed to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, and was received at Madras and transmitted to the District Superintendent of Police who in his turn sent it to the Police Inspector who after enquiry found that the allegations against the police officer were baseless. Upon this report action was taken against the petitioner under Section 47 of the District Police Act which provides:If any person shall assault or resist any police officer in the execution of his d...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Balaji Rao and ors. Vs. M.G. Natesa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ330
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the trial of O.S. No. 388 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Dharmapuri pending the disposal of C.M.A. No. 517 of 1946 in this Court, On behalf of the respondent, an objection has been raised in limine that the application is not maintainable as Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable and this Court has no jurisdiction to stay the trial of a suit out of which the proceeding in this Court does not arise. This contention has been negatived in a series of decisions of various High Courts--vide Ankalu Reddi v. Chinna Ankalu Reddi : AIR1944Mad161 Hukumchand Boid v. Kamalanand Singh I.L.R.(1905) Cal. 927 Nandakishore v. Ram Golam Sahu I.L.R.(1912) Cal. 955 Mulchand v. Jiwandas A.I.R. 1933 Lah. 50 Ma Kyaw v. Daw Kye A.I.R. 1935 Rang. 355 anl Makhanlal Chaudury v. Chandinath Majumdar : AIR1931Cal779 . The only limitation that can be placed upon the exerc...
Tag this Judgment!T.M.P. Devasenambal Ammal Vs. the Board of Commissioners for the Hindu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1947
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ397
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant applied to the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, for making an allocation of the income of the endowment in question and an order was passed by the Board that no allocation need be made. Subsection (2) of that section enacts that any party affected by an order under Sub-section (1) may within such time as may be prescribed apply to the Court to modify or set aside such order but, subject to the result of such application, the order of the Board shall be final. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 9, the Court to which the application should be made is the District Court of Tinnevelly and it follows that the City Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. That being so the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court and the suit should not have been dismissed. The dismissal of the suit is therefore set aside and the plaint will be r...
Tag this Judgment!Vemana Ramachandrayya Naidu Vs. Abdul Kadar Chisthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad37; (1947)2MLJ100
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage which was tried by the learned Subordinate Judge of Nellore. The mortgage is dated 16th May, 1927 and was executed by the first defendant on behalf of himself, as duly accredited agent of his brother, Mustapha, and as the guardian of the eighth defendant, the surviving son of the executant's deceased brother,, Ahammad. The mortgagee was one V. Veerappa Naidu, the mortgage deed being for Rs. 5,172. In respect of that amount, Rs. 3,900 was to discharge a preexisting mortgage debt created by one Pacha Saheb, the father of the first defendant, and the grandfather of the eighth defendant. The first defendant was not the legal guardian of the eighth defendant but was solely a guardian who has been referred to colloquially is a ' de facto guardian'. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge in his finding expressed the view that the interest of the eighth defendant in the mortgaged property was not affected by the mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »