Chennai Court July 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.
Sabapathi Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. Mohammad Ilais Sait and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ352
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises to set aside the summary order passed on the 24th June, 1942, in E.A. No. 244 of 1942 in E.P. No. 707 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Tiruppur.2. The claim order was passed under the following circumstances. The first defendant in the present suit executed a promissory note on the 25th April, 1935 for a sum of Rs. 600 in favour of the plaintiff. As the amount due under the promissory note was not paid the plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 322 of1937 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Coimbatore. He also applied in I.A. No. 646 of 1937 for an attachment before judgment of certain immoveable properties of the first defendant and obtained an interim attachment order. On the 28th October, 1937, the suit was decreed ex parte and the interim attachment before judgment was made absolute. On the 4th June, 1940, the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 220...
In Re: Kandaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ400
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. These two cases can be disposed of by a common judgment as the point arising in both of them is identical. I shall first of all deal with Cr. R.C. No. 1267 of 1947 which arises out of C.C. No. 410 of 1947 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollachi. The sole accused in that case was convicted by the trial Court of an offence under Section 7(1) of the Central Act XXIV of 1946 for selling paddy to a person other than the Collector or his agent. This conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, and the aggrieved party comes up in revision. In Cr. R.C. No. 1307 of 1947 the three petitioners were the accused in C.C. No. 499 of 1947 in the Court of the same Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollachi. They were the purchasers of the quantity of paddy from the accused in the previous case and were convicted of an offence under the same section of the same Act for transporting paddy without a permit.2. Though in the lower Courts...
A.V. Sreenivasalu Naidu Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ386
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a batch of applications under Section 45 of 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.2. 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 Ap...
Alla Subbareddi Vs. Lankireddi Narayanaswamireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Mad283; (1948)2MLJ251
ORDERSatyanarayana Rao, J.1. C.M P. No. 3369 of 1948 was filed by plaintiff 2 in O.S. No. 354 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada for transfer of the suit to this Court and for passing interlocutory orders and for retransferring the same. Along with this application he also filed C.M.P. No. 3370 of 1948 to appoint the Tahsildar of Bezwada or any other proper person as receiver for the properties involved in the suit O.S. No. 354 of 1947. Those applications were moved before me in the vacation Court and came up for orders on 19th May 1948.2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 instituted O.S. No. 354 of 1947 for a permanent injunction restraining defendant 1, the zamindar, from disturbing their possession of certain lanka lands of the extent of 150 acres. Their case was that these lankas were in their possession for a continuous period of about 8 years, the last of the leases in their favour expiring by 30th June 1947, and that the zamindar notwithstanding the fact that th...
thelepurath Madhavakurup Vs. K. Muhammad Sukri Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ359
Panchapakesa Sastry, J.1. The appellant herein obtained a decree in ejectment against the respondent in respect of a shop belonging to the appellant which had been leased to the respondent. The suit in ejectment was filed in the District Munsiff's Court of Calicut some time in 1944. The precise date does not appear. During the pendency of the suit the Madras Non-Residential Buildings Rent Control Order was amended and the amended order came into force on the 11th July, 1944. An ex parte decree in ejectment was passed by the District Munsiff on the 8th September, 1944, and the property was delivered over to the appellant in execution proceedings on 15th September, 1944, but the execution application was not formally closed. Thereafter on 28th October, 1944, the respondent before me applied to the Court of the District Munsiff for re-delivery of the property and the same was ordered on 30th December, 1944. The District Munsiff held, upholding the contention of the respondent, that under ...
Sri Yerri Swami by Committee Members, Thaiyiveera Bhadrappa and ors. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ254
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in these two second appeals. Their suits for recovery of moneys due under promissory notes were dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence these second appeals.2. The promissory note which is the subject-matter of second appeal No. 1361 of 1945 is dated 2nd March, 1939, and is Ex. P. The promissory note which is the subject-matter of S.A. No. 1362 is dated 3rd March, 1939, Ex.P-1. These promissory notes were affixed with postage and revenue stamp of one anna each. Even in the written statements filed by the defendants, objection was taken that these promissory notes were not enforceable as they were not properly stamped. Issue 3 was framed to cover this contention.3. The learned District Munsiff who tried the two suits out of which these second appeals arise in the first instance disposed of the suits only on issue 4 and he came to the conclusion that the money advanced under the promissory notes was not out of the funds of t...
V.K. Kandasami Chettiar (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. Shanmugha thevar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ356
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants, and this second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale relating to immovable property entered into on the nth October, 1943, between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are the subsequent purchasers of the property with notice of the prior contract. The Courts below upheld the plaintiff's right to specific performance and decreed the suit in his favour. Hence this second appeal by the subsequent purchasers.2. The short point that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether in view of the terms of Ex. P-2, the agreement of sale, the plaintiff is precluded from claiming specific performance. Under the contract the price fixed was Rs. 2,100. An advance of Rs. 500 was paid on that date, and the balance was agreed to be paid within one month from the date of the contract. It was also agreed that if the amount was paid, the first defendant, the vendor, should...
P. Umanath Bhandary and anr. Vs. Pedru Souza
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad19
Govindarajachari, J.1. These civil miscellaneous second appeals arise out of two applications for restitution.2. The appellants claim through one Bhandari who filed two suits O. S. NOS. 236 and 237 of 1937 for recovery of possession of two parcels of land which he alleged were held on chalgeni or terminable leases by Juam Souza and Thomas Souza. The suits were decreed on 30th August 1938. On 25th October 1938 one Pedru Souza who will hereafter be referred to as Pedru filed O. S. No. 505 of 1938 against Bhandari praying for a declaration that the properties involved in both O. S. NOS. 236 and 237 of 1947 were his mulgeni holdings and that the decrees in those two suits were not binding on him and praying also that Bhandari should be restrained by an injunction from executing the decrees and disturbing his possession.3. In R. E. A. Nos. 786 and 787 of 1938, Bhandari applied for delivery of possession of both the properties alleging obstruction by Pedru which he sought removal of. The app...
Addakula Subbamma and anr. Vs. Doddi Ademma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ85; (1948)2MLJ142
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the conviction and sentence passed by the First Class Bench of Magistrates, Vizianagaram, convicting them of an offence under Section 352, Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to pay a fine. The Bench consisted of four members, of whom Sri Hanumantha Rao Pantulu was the president. They were equally divided in opinion, two of them for convicting the petitioners and the other two for acquitting them. Presumably acting under Rule 131 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, the president gave a casting vote as stated at the end of his judgment, and convicted the petitioners. Two judgments have been written, one by the notional majority composed of the president with his casting vote along with one member and the other by the two individuals who constituted the minority. The question raised by Mr. Sarathi for the petitioners is whether this procedure is correct, that is whether the Criminal Procedure Code and the Rules of Practice contempl...
Sukraji Bikaji Vs. Kundammal Packraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ270
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff sued the 'defendant for damages for slander. The complaint is that the defendant got a torn torn made in the following wordsSukraj Bikajee's goods (Sukraj Bikaji is the plaintiff) are being sold by public auction at 3 p.m. on 27th October, 1944. According to plaintiff these words constituted slander and that he had suffered damage. The plaintiff's suggestion is that these words suggest the innuendo that the plaintiff was not solvent and that his goods were being brought to sale by auction by the creditor. The first Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and granted a decree for Rs. 500 as damages. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed this decision holding that the words do not per se constitute slander. I agree with the conclusion of the learned District Judge. I find nothing in the words to suggest that the plaintiff was an insolvent and that therefore his goods were being sold by auction. It is significant that in the announcemen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »