Chennai Court December 1948 Judgments
Muppavarapu Kotayya and ors. Vs. Narahari Devaiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ233
Mack, J.1. First petitioner is a plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land. Mesne profits were determined, after the decree, on a petition filed by him, for Rs. 260 and he was, on 16th April, 1946, the date on which the petition was disposed of, directed to pay additional court-fee on or before 23rd April, 1946. The District Munsiff made a rather unusual direction that if he failed to do, the petition would stand dismissed. Petitioner, after the re-opening of the Court after the recess, filed an application on 24th June, 1946, praying for extension of time on the ground of illness. This application, which was filed under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, was dismissed on 18th September, 1946, by the same District Munsiff, on the short ground that he had no power to extend time or to excuse the delay.2. The learned District Munsiff relied on a decision of Wadsworth, J., in Sripathi Baliah v. Ramayya : AIR1941Mad706 . That decision related to the setting aside of an ex part...
Tag this Judgment!Veeramachineni Seethiah Vs. Bode Venkatasubbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ269
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Clark, J., dismissing an application by three share-holders of a private limited company known by the name of Sri Gopalakrishna Motor Transport Co., Ltd., for the winding up of that Company. The appellant was the first petitioner on the original side and he claimed to be the managing director of the motor transport company from 1st July, 1946. The other two petitioners, who are respectively respondents 12 and 13 in this appeal, were a shareholder and a director of the same company. This joint stock company carried on business as a bus operator in and around Bezwada. The application before the learned Judge was under Clause (vi) of Section 162 of the Indian Companies Act on the ground that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up by Court. Various reasons are alleged in the statutory affidavit filed in support of the application, which in essence, come to this, that the directors, far from working in harmo...
Tag this Judgment!Chennuru Sitharamamurthi Chetty and ors. Vs. Chennuru Guruswami Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ400
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal and the memorandum of objections arise out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chicacole for reliefs in respect of an alleged partnership formed to work a salt factory called the Badjanapara. salt factory in the Naupada division, Vizagapatam district.2. In this Province the right to manufacture and sell salt is generally obtained by the grant of a licence issued by the Government subject to the rules under the Madras Salt Act of 1889 in pursuance of a lease of salt pans belonging to Government. The leases are usually for long periods, and in common practice are granted to the highest bidder or bidders at auctions held by the Salt Department, unless the Salt Department chooses to renew an expired lease already granted. In or about the later half of the year 1925, the Salt Department put up for auction the leasehold interest in a salt factory called the Badjanapara salt factory. Five persons namely Chennuru Appalanarasayya Setti, t...
Tag this Judgment!V. Shanmughavelayudham Pillai Vs. K.M.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ194
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this civi miscellaneous second appeal is whether the decree debt in O.S. No. 71 of 1929 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Coimbatore, was discharged under Section 10, Sub-section (2), Clause (b) of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act. Under the Act the debt would be discharged for failure on the part of the creditor to submit the statement of the debts owed to him in compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) of Section 10 contemplates the issue of a notice and service thereof calling upon every creditor to submit a statement of debts owed to him by the debtor with a view to effect a settlement. If after the receipt of such notice the creditor fails to file the statement as required by Sub-section (1), under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) the debt shall be deemed for all purposes and all occasions to have been duly discharged. The foundation, therefore, for the argument that the de...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliammal, Minor by Guardian, Patta Goundan Vs. Ramaswami Goundan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ184
Rajagopalan, J.1. The maternal uncle of the minor purporting to act as her next friend sought permission to institute a suit in forma pauperis against the father of the minor among others for the minor's maintenance. The application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was refused virtually on the sole ground, that as the minor's father and mother were alive the maternal uncle was not the minor's guardian at law. That order the petitioner seeks to set aside in revision.2. A perusal of the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3, Clauses 1 and 2, should have convinced the learned District Munsiff that the competence of a next friend of a minor instituting a suit could not be the subject-matter of investigation either at the stage of granting leave to sue in forma pauperis or for the matter of that at any other stage of the suit. The next friend as such does not need to ask for sanction of the Court to recognise him as the next friend of the minor if he is not in-capacitated in any of the ways...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Prasad Pragdas Vs. P.S. Nanjappa Chetty and Sons by Partners, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ229
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The appeal is against the decree and judgment of the learned City Civil Judge decreeing the plaintiff's suit for damages for a sum of Rs. 3,220. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Madras, and the defendant is the manufacturer of brass circles at Mirzapur in the United Provinces. In the month of June, 1944, the plaintiff booked three orders for brass circles the particulars of which and the quantity of which have been detailed in the correspondence. There is no dispute regarding the quantity and the quality; nor is there any dispute between the parties that there was a concluded contract between them. They are at variance however regarding some of the terms of the contract.2. The defendant raised three questions in the suit and the same have been repeated in the course of the arguments here. The first question was that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, secondly that the plaintiff repudiated the contract o...
Tag this Judgment!Ghadiyaram Seshayya Vs. Chintalapati Seetharamamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ545
Mack, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff. He sued to recover 320 acres of inam land from the possession of Seetharamamma, the first defendant, the daughter of his deceased brother Venkatapayya. This land is a portion of an inam grant of 1891 acres under inam title deed No. 99 for the performance of Swasthivachakam service in the temple of Sri Vennamudda Krishnaswami. The inam was admittedly confirmed in favour of Ghadiyaram Dikshitalu in the year 1860 as evidenced by the inam register extract Ex. P-1. It is common ground that this grant was amicably and, it would appear, informally divided for the purpose of enjoyment in equal shares between Dikshitalu's descendants one Surayya who is the father of the plaintiff, the 7th defendant and Venkatapayya and Surayya's brother, Ramayya, the father of the 8th defendant. It is also common ground that subsequently there was a similar partition between the brothers, plaintiff, the 7th defendant and Venkatapayya, which resulted in each obtaining s...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Ammal, Minor by Mother and Guardian, Kanchi Ammal Vs. Ramasami Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ426
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises the question of the paternity of the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff and the first defendant were married 24 or 25 years before the suit. The second plaintiff was born on the 23rd June, 1926, as Ex. P.-1 the birth extract shows. The two plaintiffs filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for recovery of maintenance and for provision for the marriage expenses of the second plaintiff. They also impugned the validity of a gift deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as being a sham and nominal document intended to defeat the maintenance rights of the plaintiffs. The main defence of the first defendant was that a few months after the marriage the first plaintiff attained puberty and ever since was leading an unchaste life. She first came into contact with one Ammu Reddiar with whom she lived as wife for a period of six years, during ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Andi thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Mad650; 1949CriLJ933
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a reference undei Section 307, Criminal P. O. by the Assistant SeBsiona Judge, Madura. The four accused in the case were charged with an offence under Section 395, Penal Code. The jury by a majority of four to one found that accused 1 to 3 were not guilty, and unanimously found that the fourth accused was not guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge agreed with the verdiot of the jury so far as accused 2 to 4 were concerned, but in regard to accused no. l he differed from the verdict of the jury and referred this caBs to the High Court. The evidence against the first accused mainly consists of the oral evidence of p. ws. 8 to 5. The same evidence also was relied upon by the prosecution in regard to accused 2 to i, The charge to the jury was very fair: and, in acoor-dance with the directions given by the Judge, the jury appreciated the evidence and refused to believe the witnesses called by the prosecution. The law on the point is well settled. The High Court...
Tag this Judgment!A. Karuppa Chetty Goundan Vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Rel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ187
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this application the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, dated the 30th July, 1948, by which the petitioner was removed from the office of the trustee of Sri Bhadrakaliamman temple, Mecheri, Salem District. The order was passed under Section 53 and Section 26 of Madras Act II of 1927 as amended by Madras Act VIII of 1944. Under Section 53(1) of the Act, the Board in the case of a temple specified in the list referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 51 and the Assistant Commissioner in the case of any other temple, may by order suspend, remove or dismiss any non-hereditary trustee on grounds specified therein. Admittedly the temple in question does not fall within the list referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 51. Therefore it is the Assistant Commissioner that can remove or dismiss a non-hereditary trustee of this temple. Under Section 26 of the Act, if the Board is sat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »