Chennai Court November 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.
A.K. Gopalan Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ843
Subba Rao, J.1. Cr. M. P. 1309 of 1948 : This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C. The petitioner is A. K. Gopalan. He was the President of the Kerala Provincial Congress Committee in the year 1985. Later on, he became a communist and took a prominent part in the communist Organisation. On 17th December 1947 he was arrested by the TanaraBseri police and was charged under Section 117, Penal Code, by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Caunanore, in p. R, C. No. 10 of 1947. It also appears that there were two other prosecutions pending against him in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tellicherry, under Section 506, Penal Code. On llth February 1948 he was released on bail by the High Court subject to certain conditions. On 18th March 1948, the conditions not having been com- plied with, the application for bail was dismissed. On 23rd April 1948 he was detained by an Order of the District Magistrate, Malabar, purport-ing to be under 8. 2 (l) (a), Madras Maintenance of ...
Minor Vedachala Reddy by Next Friend, Subramania Reddiar Vs. Narayanas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ293
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is a Hindu minor who sought to sue in forma pauperis by a next friend under Order 32, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside an alienation originally made by his own father on various grounds. The learned District Munsiff rejected his application under Order 33, Rule 5 (d-1) on the ground that it was barred by Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, in view of a previous suit O.S. No. 13 of 1944 filed on behalf of the same minor by another next friend for the same relief being dismissed for default. It is common ground that an application made by the next friend to set aside that order of dismissal was also dismissed. The minor's father is not made a party to the present suit and is said to be dead. It is not known and no one can inform me whether he was alive during the pendency of O.S. No. 13 of 1944. That fact is not really material.2. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that it is open to another next friend to file a suit on the ground of the first...
In Re: Thathi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ63
Rajagopalan, J.1. All the petitioners were convicted under Section 9 of the Madras Gaming Act, 1930. A-4 was in addition convicted under Section 8 of that Act. Before any conviction could be ordered under either of these two sections it must certainly be proved that the premises in which these persons were found gaming was a common gaming house within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. The learned Magistrate relied to a considerable extent on the presumption prescribed by Section 6 of the Act,Any cards, dice, etc, found in the place shall be evidence that such a place is used as a common gaming house and that the persons found therein were there present for the purpose of gaming, although no play was actually seen by the police officer or any of his assistants.There could be certainly no denying the fact that cards and money were found with the petitioners and obviously they were playing a game of cards for stakes. There was gaming but the question is, was it gaming in a common gamin...
Sri Baktavatsalu Naidu, Industrial Tribunal Vs. the Chrome Leather Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ119
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Subba Rao, J., on an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act by the Chrome Leather Co., Limited, directing the appellant, the Industrial Tribunal, Madura, at Commercial Tax Office, North Beach Road, Madras, not to enquire into the issues, framed by it in the dispute between the Chrome Leather Co., Limited, and the Chrome Leather Company Workers' Union, of which the second respondent is the Secretary, and further directing the Tribunal to frame fresh issues in the light of his findings.2. By G.O. No. Ms. 1349 of the Development Department, Government of Madras, dated 18th March, 1948, the Government declared that an Industrial dispute had arisen between the workers and the management of the Chrome Leather Co., Limited, and as the parties to the dispute had been unable to arrive at an amicable settlement, the Government directed that the dispute be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madura, for adjudication under Sect...
Singarachariar, Legal Representative of Deceased Trustee, Srinivasacha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ195
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only point which calls for consideration in this second appeal is the question of jurisdiction. The second appeal arose out of a suit filed by one Lakshmanan Chettiar for himself and on behalf of the creditors of defendant 1 to set aside the order passed on a claim petition filed by the second defendant, claiming properties attached by the said Lakshmanan Chettiar as properties, belonging to his judgment-debtor. The property was claimed by the second defendant on the strength of a trust deed, which was challenged by the decree-holder as a sham and nominal deed. Though the suit originally was merely to set aside the summary order, it was subsequently amended so as to include a prayer for a declaration that the trust deed executed by the first defendant, the judgment-debtor, was a sham, nominal and fraudulent transaction, which had been brought into existence with the evil intention of defrauding the creditors. The suit was filed in the Court of the District M...
Sri. C. Baktavatsalu Nayudu, Industrial Tribunal, Madura at the Commer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1951Mad856; (1949)NULLLLJ1Mad
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Subba Rao J. on an appin. under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, by the Chrome Leather Co. Ltd., directing the applt. the Industrial Tribunal, Madura, at Commercial Tax Office, North Beach Road, Madras, not to enquire into the issues framed by it in the dispute between the Chrome Leather Co. Ltd., & the Chrome Leather Co. Workers' Union, of which the second resp. is the secretary, & further directing the Tribunal to frame fresh issue in the light of his findings.2. By G. O. No. Ms. 1349 of the Development Dept. Govt. of Madras, dated 18-3-1948, the Govt. declared that an industrial dispute bad arises between the workers & the management of the Chrome Leather Co. Ltd., as the parties to the dispute had been unable to arrive at an amicable settlement, the Govt. directed that the dispute be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madura, for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal thereupon called u...
M.K. Krishna Rao Vs. Sri Gangadareswarar Temple and Other Connected Te ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ64
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The point for determination in this petition is whether the lower Court in law in refusing to allow the amendment sought for by the first defendant in his statement even on terms and in straightaway finding against the allegations in the amendment sought for on merits though the amendment had not been allowed, an issue framed, and the parties had not let in the requisite oral and documentary evidence and adduced arguments thereon.2. I am of opinion that, in the circumstances of this case, the lower Court ought to have allowed the amendment on terms, and ought not to have given its findings on the contention in the amendment without first allowing the amendment and framing an issue thereon and allowing both sides to adduce the relevant oral and documentary evidence and the arguments they desired. The suit had begun to be heard though there was, undoubtedly, some laches on the part of the first defendant who had allowed the present trustees to be brought on recor...
Subba Naicker Vs. Minor Subbaraman Naicker by Mother and Guardian Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ185
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal against the order and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin dismissing the appeal against the order and judgment of the District Munsiff of Koilpatti allowing an application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff has been carrying on for a long time a grocery shop and a piece-goods shop in Masarapatti village. The first defendant was having dealings with him in both the shops. In 1936, there was a partition between the father, i.e., the first defendant and his son, the third defendant, in and by which all the properties of the family were allotted to the third defendant and the first defendant was given a sum of Rs. 10,000. Even after the partition the first defendant continued to have dealings with the plaintiff and the accounts filed in this case show that they were running accounts. In regard to the piece goods shop the accounts filed show that a sum of Rs. 200 was due to the plaintiff being the ba...
Karuppasamy Goundar Vs. K.T. Krishnaswamy Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ199
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The only point that was argued in the Courts below was that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had no power to sell the properties in pursuance of the mortgage decree without an order of transfer of the decree from the Civil Court which passed the decree. The language of Section 57-A of the Cooperative Societies Act is clear and so far as I am able to see, there does not seem to be any necessity for a transfer of the decree. The section says:The Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the Provincial Government and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided by or under this Act, recover-(a) any amount due under a decree or order of a Civil Court, a decision or an award of the Registrar....A decree was obtained by the Co-operative Society and under this section, the Registrar is entitled to execute the decree by bringing the property to sale. Mr. Siva...
Ramachandra Chettiar Vs. Kandasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad1
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. In a preliminary decree in a suit for partition the decree of the trial Court provided ; 'that the plaintiff be entitled to a half share in the plaint A Schedule, Items 1 to 5 described hereunder on payment into Court within six months from this data Rs. 1102-5-0 with interest thereon at six per cent. per annum from the date of plaint, that is, 15th September 1943 till payment.'The amount was not paid within the period of six months from the date of the decree of the trial Court. There was an appeal against that decree and that appeal was finally disposed of on 28th June 1946. Within six months of the date of the appellate decree, the plaintiff deposited the amount into Court, and applied in I. A. No. 386 of 1946 for permission to deposit the amount due 1950 M/1 & 2 under the preliminary decree which was confirmed on appeal into Court and the learned Subordinate Judge granted a week's time from the date of the order 8th January 1947. That order, defendant 1, peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »