Chennai Court March 1948 Judgments
In Re: C.W. Casse
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ28
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. M. P. no. 166 of 1948 in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, was an application by one Mr. C. W. Casse, praying that his statement should be recorded under Section 164, Criminal P. C, in order that it may be used for the purpose of the enquiry or trial which might arise out of Crime No. 2 of 1947 investigated by the Special Police Establishment, New Delhi. It does not appear from the proceedings that there was any affidavit filed in support of the petition before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate; but from the order of the lower Court it appears that the Court was informed that one Mr. Thompson had been arrested at Bangalore under instructions from the Delhi special police in regard to certain offences said to have been committed by him at Cawnpore. Mr. Casse requested the Magistrate to record his statement under Section 164, Criminal P. C, for the reason that the statement would be very important evidence in connection with the proposed...
Tag this Judgment!Chandu Kunhan Panikker Vs. Ukkappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ177
1. The first defendant is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the 1st respondent for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 45 of 1935 and the sale in E.P. No. 296 of 1940 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, South Malabar, are void and do not bind the plaintiff. The 1st defendant obtained the decree in O.S. No. 45 of 1935 on foot of a mortgage. The final decree was passed on 28th January, 1938. The present 1st respondent was the judgment-debtor and he on 12th August, 1940, filed an application under Section 4 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act of 1936 for conciliation of his debts. The decree-holder filed execution petition No. 792 of 1940 and the judgment-debtor filed in the executing Court an application under Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act, on 15th August, 1940. The application after due notice to the decree-holder was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge and disposed of by him on 4th September, 1940. The application was dismissed by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Mudigonda Veerabhadraiah Vs. Lavu Seshiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ369
Yahya Ali, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of the execution proceedings of the decree in O.S. No. 583 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Bapatla. The execution petition No. nil in O.S. No. 583 of 1933 was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The point for determination in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is whether the order dismissing the execution petition on the ground of limitation is correct.2. The decree in question was passed on 15th February, 1934. On 24th February, 1934, E.P. No. 190 of 1934 was filed and it was struck off on 10th April, 1934. The next execution petition No. 228 of 1935 was filed on 17th January, 1935, for rateables and on 15th November, 1935 rateables were allowed and part satisfaction of the decree was entered. The third execution petition was filed on 26th January, 1938, in which the prayer was that the second defendant should be added as the legal representative of the deceased first defen...
Tag this Judgment!Suddapalli Ramaiya and ors. Vs. Yelavarthi Suryanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ314
Horwill, J.1. The sixth defendant, who is the mother of defendants 4 and 5, mortgaged the suit property; and upon that mortgage a suit was brought and the property sold in Court auction and purchased by the decree-holder, who is the plaintiff, on 22nd November, 1937. A suit was thereupon filed by defendants I to 4 impugning the mortgage and asserting that the sixth defendant had no authority to mortgage the property. Their suit was dismissed in the trial Court; but they carried the matter in appeal to the High Court and obtained an injunction order on 7th November, 1938, restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their possession. That injunction continued in force during the pendency of the appeal, which was ultimately dismissed. The plaintiff took delivery of the property on 12th November, 1941. He then attempted during the course of the execution to obtain mesne profits by way of restitution; but his application was dismissed, it being held that his remedy lay only by way of a ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P. Venkatachala thevar Vs. in Re: M.V. Sivasanakara thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ89
Horwill, J.1. On 22-2.1948, the District Magistrate of Tanjore passed a detention order, purporting to be under Section 2 (l) (a), Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, stating that he was satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of: public order and that with a view to preventing him from so doing, it was necessary to pass am order for his detention. He therefore directed that the detenu be arrested by the police and detained in the Central Jail at Trichinopoly. As required under Section 2 (2) of the Act, he informed the Provincial Government at once of what he had done and the grounds for his action. On 8th March, the petitioner filed his application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., praying that the High Court might issue directions in the nature-of habeas corpus, as the detenu had been wrongfully detained without any reasons for his-detention being given, because of some misunderstanding that had arisen between him and the local polic...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P. Venkatachala thevar; in Re: M.V. Sivasankara thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ67
ORDERHorwill, J.1. On the 22nd February, 1948, the District Magistrate of Tanjore passed a detention order, purporting to be under Section 2(1)(a) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, stating that he was satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that with a view to preventing him from so doing, it was necessary to pass an order for his detention. He therefore directed that the detenu be arrested by the police and detained in the Central Jail at Trichinopoly. As required under Section 2(2) of the Act, he informed the Provincial Government at once of what he had done and the grounds for his action. On the 8th March, the petitioner filed this application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying that the High Court might issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus, as the detenu had been wrongfully detained without any reasons for his detention being given, because of some misunderstanding that h...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Udayan and anr. Vs. Annamalai Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ130
Subba Rao, J.1. The question that arises in this revision petition is one of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is conceded that if Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act applies to the relief claimed in the plaint, the District Munsiff's Court of Salem., will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The suit was for partition of the properties by metes and bounds into four equal shares and for the allotment of three such shares to the plaintiffs. It is alleged in the plaint that the properties described therein were the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and their father, the first defendant. The first defendant had executed a mortgage in respect of the said properties in favour of the second defendant for Rs. 2,320. The first defendant being addicted to bad habits, was prevailed upon to execute a sale deed on 22nd January, 1937, for discharging the mortgage debt and other fictitious considerations recited in the sale. It is also stated that there was no necessity to alienate the enti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sadagopa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ414
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The parking of buses in sheds built upon private land cannot amount to a public nuisance prima facie. There is no evidence whatever that the act of the petitioner has caused any nuisance to any one and much less to the public at large. There is nothing to show that the members of the public have complained against the petitioner for causing public nuisance. In the absence of any material before it the lower Court was wrong in extending the order under Section 139-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure especially since the preli-minary order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was itself wrong. The petition is allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Arjuna Mudaliar Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ271
Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He and his deceased brother, one Ramaswami Mudali, and the latter as the guardian of his minor son the third defendant, sold the suit properties to the second defendant on 9th January, 1920, by registered sale deed Ex. D. 1, for a sum of Rs. 300. On the same day, the second defendant and his wife, the first defendant, executed in favour of the vendors an agreement, Ex. P-1, agreeing to reconvey the properties on the vendors paying on any day the principal of Rs. 300, the sale price, and interest accrued on it at the rate of Re. 1 per Rs. 100 per mensem. Ramaswami Mudali died, and defendants 3 and 4 are his sons and the fifth defendant is his widow. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ami on 4th September, 1942, claiming one of two alternative reliefs. His first claim was on the basis that the sale deed and the agreement to reconvey formed part of the same...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gopalan Being Minor by His Mother and Guardian, Mrs. Jagadambal Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ113
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. We agree with Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., on both the points taken before him, which were also taken before us. The order of Venkataramana Rao, J., in Application No. 1935 of 1941 in O.P. No. 158 of 1938 did not purport to supersede the three decrees under which the appellant was liable. It only gave leave to the Official Liquidators to accept in full discharge a sum of Rs. 2,500 payable in monthly instalments, and in default, they were to be paid a sum of Rs. 2,500, with interest at six per cent from date of default. We do not agree with the appellant that the only remedy which the respondent had was to execute this order as if it had superseded the decrees. The ruling in Mahiganj Loan Office Ltd. v. Biharee Lal Chaki I.L.R. (1937) 1 Cal. 781, has no application because in that case there was a scheme under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act sanctioned by Court and it was held the the scheme superseded the decree which became incapable of executi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »