Chennai Court July 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.
inas Rodrigues Vs. Santhan Souza
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad114; (1947)2MLJ254
ORDERChandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. If I may say so with respect, there is much force in the view taken by the Full Bench in Maria Pillai v. Ramanathan Chettiar (1928) M.W.N. 557 that the only Court that can interfere with an order like the one we have before us in this case is the High Court in revision. But the Full Bench was prepared to hold in accordance with the procedure that had been followed in this Court for several years that an appeal from an order under Section 517 can be taken to the District Magistrate, which is described by the Code as the Court of Appeal. We are concerned only with an appeal against an order relating to the disposal of property and not an appeal from the main case itself, in which event the Court which hears the appeal can pass appropriate orders regarding the disposal.2. The Additional District Magistrate's Court cannot be regarded as a Court of Appeal. He is not straightaway and by reason of his appointment as Additional District Magistrate vested with al...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad62
Gentle, C.J.1. This is an application by the petitioner, who formerly was a pleader, for restoration of his sanad and reinstatement as pleader. He was first enrolled as a First Grade Pleader in 1925. Upon complaint by a client to the learned District Munsif of Sattur, an enquiry was held into the conduct of the petitioner who had obtained, on behalf of his client, a sum of Rs. 568-2-0 and accounted to the client only for Rs. 100. The learned District Munsif reported that the petitioner had misappropriated the balance of Rs. 468-20. This Court, upon considering the District Munsif's report, found that the petitioner had been guilty of professional misconduct and directed the cancellation of his sanad and he was removed from the roll of pleaders. That was on 25th November 1940.2. In support of the present application a number of affidavits have been filed to which a short reference is convenient. The petitioner, himself, expresses full regret and promises that, if his application is gran...
Minor Balakrishna Andivelasami Naicker Vs. Chinna Thayee Ammal and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ361
Govindarajachari, J.1. These two civil miscellaneous second appeals arise out of an order in execution passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul confirming the order passed by the learned District Munsiff of Dindigul in E.P. No. 56 of 1944 in O.S. No. 245 of 1942 on the file of that Court. The appellant in C.M.S.A. No. 88 of 1946 filed O.S. No, 245 of 1942 against her step-Son who is the appellant in C.M.S.A. No. 33 of 1946 and her co-widow for several reliefs to which no detailed reference need be made. The suit was referred to the arbitration of certain arbitrators who gave an award and a decree was passed in the suit in terms of that award. The material portions of the decree for the purpose of these second appeals may be shortly referred to. After reciting that the suit was referred to certain arbitrators and that they gave their award, the decree proceeds to state, ' that this Court doth in pursuance of Ex. D-1 (award) order and decree as follows....Clause (1) of the dec...
In Re: K.G. Mahadevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad102; (1947)2MLJ307
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. An appealable sentence has been awarded in this case. In such a case under Section 362(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate shall take down the evidence of the witnesses and such evidence shall form part of the record. But evidently this procedure was not followed and when an application was made by the advocate for the accused for copy of the evidence he was informed that the evidence was not recorded as the case was being heard summarily. The notes taken down by the learned Magistrate were not evidently intended to be a record of evidence as contemplated by Section 362(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because some of the statements are in the third person. No endorsement is made with respect to P. W. 3's evidence if there was any cross-examination.2. In these circumstances the trial was bad. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the case is sent back for trial de novo by the Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras....
D. Thyagaraja Iyer Vs. the Abishega Kattalai of Tiruvarur Devasthanam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ421
Govindarajachari, J.1. The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the defendant in S.S. No. 4.5 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Collector, Nepapatam, which is a suit filed under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act (Act I of 1908). It is admitted that the plaint asks for a sale of the holding of the ryot for recovery of the arrears of rent claimed. Learned counsel are not agreed as to whether the suit was filed shortly before or shortly after the 4th October, 1946, on which date Madras Act XVII of 1946 came into operation. But the exact date of the suit is immaterial and it is admitted that it was instituted early in October, 1946. Shortly after filing his written statement the petitioner applied for stay of the suit under the said Act and the Deputy Collector by his order, dated 2nd November, 1946, accordingly stayed it till 15th April, 1047. It would appear that alorg with this suit several other suits were also stayed under similar orders. Against the orders ...
Mrs. Saradambal Ammal Vs. E.R. Kandasamy Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ374
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract entered into by the defendant to convey an estate known as the Kosalai estate to the first plaintiff.2. The contract is evidenced by a compromise decree dated 8th April, 1942, in O.S. No. 67 of 1941 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nilgiris, whereby the first plaintiff undertook, inter alia to deposit Rs.16,500 by the 30th June, 1943, and the defendant on his part agreed to convey the estate. The first plaintiff entered into an agreement on 17th June, 1943, with the second plaintiff purporting to sell the estate for Rs. 25,000 to the latter. Under this agreement, the first plaintiff got Rs. 17,880 which she deposited in Court in pursuance of the compromise decree on the 29th June, 1943, and brought the present suit for specific performance of the compromise by the defendant executing a conveyance either to her or to the second plaintiff.3. It would appear that the second plaintiff in his turn pu...
Sha Jetmull Ganmul Vs. the Chartered Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ340
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an appeal from Clarke, J., sitting on the Original Side of this Court regarding a question of costs. The relevant facts are as follows:2. The plaintiff (appellant here) instituted a suit against the defendant - respondent, the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, claiming Rs. 15,000, the price of goods bargained and sold but which had not been delivered, and, in addition, Rs. 9,000, damages for non-delivery. Further claims amounting to Rs. 3,000 represented interest on the above amounts, making a total claim of a sum slightly exceeding Rs. 27,000. In respect of the claim for damages for non-delivery the amount sought to be recovered was Rs. 10,185, including interest.3. During the preliminary matters relating to the suit and preparation for trial, three orders were made directing evidence to be taken on commission at Simla, Bombay and Calicut respectively. Two of these orders were obtained at the instance of the respondent and one of th...
K. Kelu Nair Vs. T.S. Thirumampu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad266; (1947)2MLJ325
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. This case arises out of a complaint filed by the petitioner one Kelu Nair charging the first and the second accused with an offence punishable under Section 500, Indian Penal Code and the third accused with an offence punishable under Section 501, Indian Penal Code. The second accused is the publisher and the third accused is the printer of a Malayalam newspaper called 'Deshabimani' printed and published at Calicut. The first accused is the writer of an article published in that paper in its issue dated 25th March, 1945, under the caption,' Panathadai village of Kasargad Taluk--The dancing ground of repression.' The petitioner alleged that the said article contained defamatory matter consisting of imputations which would harm his reputation. To the charge as framed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, South Kanara, on this complaint was appended an extract from the said article of five passages. These passages, according to the Petitioner, maliciously and fal...
S. Sriranga Nacharamma Vs. Rao Bahadur Nadamuni Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ333
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an Originating Summons, taken out by the respondents under the provisions of Order XLV of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court, for the construction of the terms of one bequest in the will dated the 12th November, 1881, of the late Alathoor Thiruvengadathan Chetty. He died shortly after the will was executed ; probate of the will was obtained in 1882 by the executors and executrix therein named. The testator was survived by his wife Amirthavalli Thayar and by three sons of his deceased elder brother, Narayana Chetty, Namberumal Chetty and Ramanujam Chetty; he left no issue surviving him. The widow and the three nephews of the testator are now dead. The two respondents, plaintiffs in the Originating Summons, are the survivors of the four sons of Namberumal ; the defendant-appellant is the only daughter of Ramanujam, who left no male issue ; and Narayana died without issue. The will is in Telugu, the English translation o...
In Re: R. Akbar Sheriff
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad232; (1947)2MLJ388
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. I do not think that the act of the Magistrate under Section 337, Criminal P.C., namely, tendering pardon to a person is revisable by this Court. No authority has been placed before me to show that it is revisable. If there are any irregularities in the grant of the pardon they can be urged by the accused at the trial. The petitions are dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »