Chennai Court January 1948 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 Official Receiver, Representing the Estate of Tadi Bulli Gangiredd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ473
Govindarajachari, J.1. The appellant's suit for contribution under Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Coconada on the ground of non-joinder. One Tadi Bulli Gangireddi was adjudged insolvent on the 13th of November, 1931, in I.A. No. 12 of 1931 which was filed on 17th March, 1931, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coconada. Nine days before the order of adjudication Gangireddi's son who is the first respondent in this appeal and who was the first defendant in the Court below filed O.S. No. 250 of 1931 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ramachandrapur against his father for partition of the family properties. This resulted in a preliminary decree on the 16th of November, 1931. The Official Receiver was impleaded in the suit on the 16th of February, 1932. Another son was born to Gangireddi in 1934. He is referred to throughout the record by the curious description of' an unnamed boy.' Gangireddi died on the 17th of January, 193...
Pamudurthi Suryanarayana Reddi and ors. Vs. Pamudurthi Venkata Reddi a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad436; (1948)1MLJ317
Govindarajachari, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether, by reason of the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, a defendant is precluded from putting forward an award which has been fully performed by him but which was not filed under Section 14 and according to which a judgment was not pro-nounced or a decree given under Section 17 of the Act, in answer to the plaintiff's claim which was the subject-matter of the reference and the award.2. The short facts are as follows: The plaintiff, the first respondent here, is the son of one Bayappareddy by his first wife. The appellants who were defendants 1 to 4 in the Court below are Bayappareddy's sons by his second wife. The fifth, sixth and seventh defendants are respectively the younger brother, the second wife and the mother of Bayappareddy who died on 14th March, 1942. The plaintiff claimed a partition of the suit properties on the ground that the fifth defendant, his uncle, is entitled to a half share, and the plaintiff ...
Panchaksharam Pillai Vs. Rangaswami Pillai, Trustee of Selva Vinayakar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad332; (1948)1MLJ337
Clark, J.1. The first respondent is a trustee of a temple and has filed the suit for recovery of possession of certain properties which he claims to belong to the temple. He filed the suit in December, 1944, against two persons (defendants 1 and 2) to whom another trustee purports to have mortgaged the properties. That mortgage was a possessory mortgage, dated 20th May, 1942 and accordingly the suit was one for possession against the two mortgagees. The first respondent asked also for cancellation of the mortgage on the ground that the trustee-mortgagor had no authority to effect it. The plaint was accepted and registered on the 13th January, 1945 and the defendants-mortgagees claimed that the mortgage was paid off before that date. In October, 1945, the suit was decreed in the respondent's favour. In March, 1945, the trustee who effected this mortgage (the fifth defendant) purported to sell this mortgaged property to the petitioner. There was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge's Court...
Chinniah thevar Vs. F.M. Badsha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ314
Clark, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Tanjore, evicting the petitioner. By Section 12(1)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, ' the Provincial Government may, by general or special order notified in the Fort St. George Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act.... ' In exercise of this power the Provincial Government have appointed the District Judges in some places and Subordinate Judges in other places as ' appellate autho-rities'. In the Tanjore district the Subordinate Judge has been so appointed.2. A preliminary point arises as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to inter-fere in revision. Clearly such jurisdiction can arise only if the case is one falling within the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The question then is whether the Subordinate Judge...
H. Shiva Rao Vs. the Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ266
Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the Collector of Madras, dated the 1st October, 1947, and to quash his order which runs thus:In virtue of the powers vested in him under Section 3(2), of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, the Collector of Madras is pleased to allot premises No. 16, Rajarathnam Street, Kilpauk, Madras, to Dr. C. Satyanarayana, for residential purposes with effect from 27th September, 1947.2. The house in question was comprised in the estate of one Rao Bahadur H. Narayana Rao who died leaving behind him a will under which the petitioner was appointed executor. It is alleged in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application that from about the end of 1942, the premises were occupied by Successive officers of Government or by Government institutions. On the 5th February, 1947, one Rao Bahadur R. Madhavachari who had been in occupation of the ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Jeevarathnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad503; (1948)1MLJ452
Govinda Menon, J.1. The Public Prosecutor, Madras, appeals against the acquittal of the respondents by the learned Sessions Judge of East Tanjore in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1946 on his file. The respondents had been convicted by the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Negapatam, of an offence punishable under Rule 84 (vi) of the Defence of India Rules in that they contravened the provisions of Rule 84 (iv) of the same enactment. On appeal, the learned Judge holding that the Customs Union agreement between the Government of India and the Governor-General of the French Establishments in India has not been proved properly, concluded that the respondents were entitled to acquittal and accordingly directed the same.2. So far as the facts are concerned, there is no complication. On the 10th October, 1945, at about 8-30 p.m., when the respondents were carrying by sea bundles of piecegoods in a catamaran bound for Jaffna, a party of Customs officials, including P.Ws. 1 and 2 sighted the craft...
Mohamed Ismail Sait Vs. Abdul Hameed Sait and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ87
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. In the appeal before His Majesty in Council the question has arisen as to the legal representatives of the deceased nth respondent--fifth defendant in the suit. It is necessary that her interests should be represented in the appeal and her legal representatives brought on record in respect of her interest in the subject-matter of the litigation.2. The matter was referred to the learned Master who has reported to this Court the result of his investigation, his conclusion being that, for the reasons given, the estate of the 11th respondent will escheat to the Province of Madras, the Province of West Bengal and to His Highness the Maharajah of Mysore, in regard to properties forming part of the interest of the 11th respondent situated in those territories.3. The 11th respondent was formerly a Hindu lady. She was converted to Islam and married a Mr. Yunus, a Muslim who predeceased her. She inherited one-fourth of her husband's estate, pursuant to th...
Sha Devichand Moolchand Vs. Sha Dhanraj Kantilal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ276
Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This is an application to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, made by him in H.R.A. No. 446 of 1947 from the order of the House Rent Controller in H.R.C. No. 7277 of 1946.2. The petitioner before us is the son of one Sha Moolchand Jodhajee who owned premises No. 201, Govindappa Naicken Street, G.T., Madras, in which the respondent was carrying on business as a tenant. On the 12th December, 1946, Jodhajee filed a petition before the Rent Control Officer, Madras, under Section 7(2)(1) of Madras Act XV of 1946, seeking to evict the respondent from the premises. The ground alleged by him was that the respondent had failed to pay the monthly rental of Rs. 225 for the month of October on or before the last day of the month next following, that is to say, on or before the 30th November, 1946. He alleged that the rent for the months of October and November, 1946, was sent to him only on th...
Mappillaisami thevar and ors. Vs. Muthuswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ301
Horwill, J.1. This case has been referred to us by Govinda Menon, J., because there appeared to be a conflict between the decision of Burn, J., in Ponnammal v. Salaxi Ammal 1933 M.W.N. (Cri.) 233 and that of Jackson, J., in Venkatasubba Iyer v. Soundararaja Iyengar 1929 M.W.N. (Cri.) 5.2. The respondent filed a complaint before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Ramnad against three persons. The allegations against the first accused constituted an offence under Section 355, Indian Penal Code, which is a warrant case, since the offence is punishable with two years rigorous imprisonment. Against the second and third accused, the offence alleged was one punishable under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, which is a summons case, being punishable with only three months' imprisonment. These offences were committed by the three accused during the course of the same transaction. It is clear that under the circumstances the procedure to be adopted is that laid down for a warrant case; because other...
In Re: Jayarama Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ161
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The true and proper construction of Sections 2 (A) and 15 (a) of the-Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, will determine the contention raised regarding the guilt or innocence of the petitioner.2. The essential facts cannot be disputed and shortly stated they are that the-petitioner who is a dealer in silver wares and gold jewels in Kumbakonam Town and an assessee under the General Sales Tax Act, furnished a return on the 15th April, 1946, Ex. P-i, in Form 'A' for the year 1945-1946 which admittedly did not include the value of 15,322-1/8 tolas weight of silver relating to the silver articles sold by him. The justification for the non-inclusion of the value of this: weight of silver according to the petitioner, is the practice followed by him to sell! the articles, not for proper money consideration but only after getting back the equivalent weight of silver from the customers, for the precise quantity of the silver utilised in the manufacture of the article or ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »