Chennai Court March 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.
Commissioner, Municipal Council Vs. Srimathi Siddeswara Devi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ111
Happel, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Commissioner of the Municipal Council, Vizagapatam, for the recovery of the land tax alleged to be due for a certain site for the years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43 and for the first half-year of 1943-44 at Rs. 76-4-0 a year. It appears that up to 1940 a house and site of about 4 acres had been assessed as if the whole of the 4 acres was adjacent and appurtenant to the house. In 1940, however, on the report of a Special Officer some 3 acres out of the 4 were excluded from the site held to be appurtenant to the house and were separately taxed. It was in respect of the tax due on the land held not to be appurtenant to the house that the suit was brought, and the defendants maintained that they were not liable to pay the tax, because this part of the site was appurtenant to the house. On the question of fact both the lower Courts have held that the land in question was appurtenant to the house so that a separate tax shoul...
Subramania Kandar Vs. Ramaswami Kandar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ201; (1948)1MLJ406
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge is perfectly right in holding that a revision dismissed for default of appearance cannot be restored to file. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure analogous to Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure or its equivalent in Order 41, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code.2. As the complaint was dismissed by the Court of First Instance only under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it does not prevent the complainant from filing a fresh complaint, if there are sufficient facts justifying such a course. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is correct. The revision petitions are dismissed....
In Re: A.T. Vasudevan and ors. Minors., A.S. Thiruvengada Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ47
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an application under clause 17 of the Letters Patent of 1865 by A.S. Thiruvengada Mudaliar for being appointed guardian of the joint family property belonging inter alia, to his five minor sons and for sanction of the sale of that property as being beneficial to the interests of the minor sons. The petitioner as the father is the Karta of the family and he has besides the five minor sons two adult sons, and there are also his wife and an unmarried minor daughter who have rights of maintenance. The properties admittedly are ancestral immoveable properties consisting of lands in the villages of Sembiam and Paravallur measuring in the aggregate about 52 acres. Those villages were recently brought within the Municipal limits of Madras City and the lands therein have consequently risen in value. I shall deal with the facts bearing upon the beneficial nature of the proposed transaction at a later stage.2. The first question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to en...
In Re: Meerasa Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ76; (1948)2MLJ162
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an unfortunate case. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his only child, Pakkiri Meeral, aged 5 by stabbing it in the abdomen with a knife and has been sentenced to transportation for life.2. The prosecution case may be shortly stated. The appellant was married to P. W. 6 ten years ago. Their married life was none too happy. There were frequent quarrels, the last being about 20 days prior to the murder. As a consequence of this quarrel, P.W. 6 went away to the house of her brothers, which is very near to the appellant's house. The child, Pakkiri Meeral, was spending part of its time in the appellant's house and part of its time in the house of her maternal uncles. On the 17th of September, 1947, at about 8 a.m. the appellant went to the house of his brothers-in-law and asked that his wife should be sent to his house. The brothers-in-law suggested a panchayat. P.W. 6 who was inside the house heard this conversation and shouted out that she wo...
A.Kn.V. Valliappa Chettiar Vs. P.Kl.S. Nachiappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ416
Happell, J.1. The order which is sought to be revised was an interlocutory order made by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 270 of 1947 directing that a. commissioner should be appointed to take an inventory of the assets of the firm of which certain of the defendants, including the second defendant were partners, including the monies collected by defendants 2, 11 and 12. The petitioner here is the second defendant in the suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs, who are junior members of the family of which the first defendant is the managing member, for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to a half share and the first defendant to the other half share in the partnership assets of the firm of which the first defendant, the second defendant and others were partners; for an account against the first defendant in respect of the assets and reali-sations of the family in the partnership; for payment to the plaintiffs of their half share; and for the a...
In Re: D.H. Satyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ68; (1948)2MLJ114
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. I do not see any justification for admitting the revision simply on the ground that the order of acquittal was pronounced on Sunday. Though Rule (1) of the Criminal Rules of practice states that no judicial work should be transacted on Sunday, it does not mean that the Court has no jurisdiction to acquit an accused on Sunday and release him from custody. The rule provides for cases of absolute urgency. Even if the pronouncing of the order of acquittal may not be one of absolute urgency I do not feel that this by itself will justify my interference in revision. This revision petition is therefore dismissed....
A. Vs. Sreenivasalu Naidu V. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR341(Mad)
This is a batch of applications under Sections 45 of the Specific Relief Act for directing the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, to hear and determine the revisions filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore Range. The facts are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated.The Income-tax Officer, II Circle, Coimbatore, passed orders of assessment against the petitioner for the assessment years 1940-41, 1941-42, 1943-44, 1944-45 and 1945-46. Against the said orders of assessment the petitioner preferred Income-tax Appeals Nos. 237, 1253, 1254 and 1255 of 1945-46 and Income-tax Appeal No. 315 of 1946-47 to the Appellate Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore Range. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner disposed of the appeals on the 6th December, 1946. The appeals were allowed in part, but the petitioner did not get the entire relief he claimed. Against the said orders the petitioner preferred Income-tax Appeals Nos. 3302...
In Re: K. S. Doraiswamy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ98
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is an application to quash the four charges framed against the petitioner, by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Banipet in c. C. No. 231 of 1947 on his file, The first of these charges relates to an offence under Section 120B, Penal Code, in that the petitioner, between 1st May 1946 and 1st June 1946 at Arkonam, with a person who is accused 2 in the Court below, agreed to do an illegal act, viz., fairing out the military vehicles entrusted to the petitioner for allotting to the Sub-Divisional Officers for military works, to p. w. 2, a civilian building contractor, and that the same act, viz., the hiring out of the military lorries to the private contractor, having been done in pursuance to an illegal agreement the petitioner hereby committed an offence of criminal conspiracy. The next three charges relate to cases of criminal breach of trust by a public servant, viz., the petitioner, in that he as Sub-Divisionl Officer, M. E. S., Arkonam, being entr...
V. Ramaswami Gupta Vs. Pasuparthi Krishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ104
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question of court-fee. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 69 of 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor is the petitioner. The allegations in the plaint material for consideration of the question at issue are as follows:2. The defendant executed a promissory note bearing date 11th December, 1941, for a sum of Rs. 3,815 in favour of one Padmavathamma. The said promissory note was transferred in favour of the plaintiff on 12th December, 1941. The plaintiff was demanding payment of the amount of principal and interest due under the promissory note but the defendant was postponing payment. Early in December, 1943, the defendant entered into an oral agreement of sale with the plaintiff under which he agreed to sell the house for a sum of Rs. 3,700 which sum had to be adjusted towards part of the amount due under the promissory note. The defendant however did not execute a proper sale deed, though the plaintiff w...
M.V. Kalyanasundaram Chetty Vs. Nagalinga Achari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ141
Horwill, J.1. The suit was brought for recovery of certain property which had been alienated by limited owners. The alienations were made at different times to different persons. In appeal it was held that the alienations were not binding on the plaintiffs' reversioners, and a decree for possession and mesne profits and costs was passed. In the concluding paragraph of the judgment the learned Judges said:The plaintiffs are entitled to their costs in this Court and below in respect of items Nos. 1, 2 6 and 7 as against the first, second, fifth and sixth defendants. They will pay the costs here of the third, fourth and fifth defendants in respect of items 3, 4 and 5. By Ex. D. 4 the second defendant entered into an arrangement with the decree-holder by which he obtained possession of one of the suit items and by which they settled all their outstanding claims with regard to mesne profits, costs, and improvements. The first defendant also claimed in evidence that he had entered into an ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »