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.
Dunna Venkata Rao Vs. Sree Rajah Saheb Meharban I Dostan Sree Rajah Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad2
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This second appeal was referred by me to be heard by a Bench as it raised two important questions, one relating to the interpretation of Order 21, Rule 57, Civil P. C., as amended by this Court and the other concerning the effect of a prior execution order on the title of the plaintiff.2. The subject-matter of this second appeal is a house which once belonged to defendant 2. On 15th June 1930 defendant 2 obtained a loan from the Co-operative Society, Vuppada, giving some properties of his as security. The society subsequently discovered that the security was insufficient and demanded defendant 2 to give further security. By an agreement dated 5th May 1935 defendant 2 agreed to mortgage the suit house to the said society. The society obtained an award in respect of the amount due to it against defendant 2 on 21st July 1937. In pursuance of this award the properties of defendant 2 were brought to sale and were purchased by defendant 1 the Maharajah of Pithapuram. ...
In Re: K.V.M. Parameswarayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ558
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate at South Kanara requesting this Court to set aside the conviction of the accused under B. 387, Penal Code, by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Puttur, in o. o. no. 352 of 1948 and to order a further enquiry against the accused foe an offence under Section 307, Penal Code, which according to the evidence adduced, is, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, the offence committed by the accused. My learned brother Bajagopalan J. in issuing notice to the Public Prosecutor, made the following observation:Rule 269, Criminal Rules of Practice hag not been complied with. There was no call for an explanation from the Sub-Magistrate by the District Magistrate. No doubt it is unlikely the Sub-Magistrate will have anything to add to the lengthy explanation he furnished to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.It is virtually a question of appreciation of evidence-mainly of oral evidence.Notice may be ordered to the Public Prosecutor ...
Ramineedi Ramachandra Rao, Minor by Mother and Guardian, Tayaramma Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ76
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The main point urged before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this second appeal, the third defendant in the suit, was that the lower appellate Court was not entitled in law to dismiss the appeal with costs on the ground that he had not deposited ' the admitted amount' in the trial Court. He urged that the trial Court had not exercised its powers under Section 192(5) pf the Madras Estates Land Act and refused to take cognizance of the appellant's plea that the rent claimed was in excess of the amount due, and that, therefore, the lower appellate Court had no power to exercise that power, and dismiss the appeal, without at least passing an order directing the appellant to pay into Court the amount so admitted to be due, or such reasonable portion of the amount which the Court might direct, as the section itself requires. I agree. Neither side is able to tell me now what was the rent admitted as due by this appellant, except that he admitted it to be...
Dunna Venkata Rao Vs. Sree Rajah Saheb Meharban I Dostan Rajah Rao Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ320
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This second appeal was referred by me to be heard by a Bench as it raised two important questions, one relating to the interpretation of Order 21, Rule 57, Civil Procedure Code as amended by this Court and the other concerning the effect of a prior execution order on the title of the plaintiff.2. The subject matter of this second appeal is a house which once belonged to the second defendant. On 15th June, 1930, the second defendant obtained a loan from the Co-operative Society, Vuppada, giving some properties of his as security. The Society subsequently discovered that the security was insufficient and demanded the second defendant to give further security. By an agreement dated 5th of May 1935, the second defendant agreed to mortgage the suit house to the said society. The society obtained an award in respect of the amount due to it against the second defendant, on the 21st of July, 1937. In pursuance of this award the properties of the second defendant were br...
In Re: Velayudha Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ698; (1948)2MLJ653
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The circumstances arising in these four revisions have to be set out briefly in order to understand the point of law raised by Mr. P.C. Parthasarathy Ayyangar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. C.C. No. 138 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vellore, was the result of a charge against forty accused for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. When that was taken up for hearing six of the accused were absconding and so the case was split up against the absconders and numbered as C.C. No. 207 of 1946. Subsequently C.C. No. 207 of 1946 was transferred to the Additional First Class Magistrate of Cheyyar at Ranipet and numbered as C.C. No. 74 of 1946. In the meanwhile, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vellore, proceeded with the enquiry against the 34 accused before him in C.C. No. 138 of 1946 and framed charges against them for offences under Sections 147, 448, 427, 435, 325 and 332 Indian Penal Code. Afterwards this case was also tra...
Contractor Kattupuchi Arumugham Vs. Nagammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ639
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, awarding Nagammal, the widow of a cooly, Venkataswami Naicker and his three minor children Rs. 810 as compensation. Venkataswami was employed along with some other coolies to unload a wagon of dehydrated potatoes at Avadi station. While carrying a box on his head it is said to have slipped on to his stomach and caused him an abdominal injury. This was on 4th September, 1946. He was removed to his village in the first instance and brought to hospital on 7th September, 1946, where he died on 14th September, 1946.2. An appeal lies only if a substantial point of law is involved in the Commissioner's order. The learned Counsel for the appellant, who is a contractor by the name of Arumugham, fully realises this. He urges that the Commissioner on the evidence and on the facts wrongly found that Venkataswami was a workman within the scope of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›