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.
Sri S. Krishna Aiyar Vs. the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ508
Govindarajachari, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, directing the appellant to indemnify the respondent who will hereafter be referred to compendiously as the Government, in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,800 paid by the latter to the widow of a workman under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. The appellant is an engineering contractor. By a contract with the Government he undertook to form a link road between Aminjikarai and Villivakkam. For the purpose of this contract the appellant had to transport what are described as soling stones from a quarry at Chikarayapuram to the workspot. In respect of the transport of these stones, the Government agreed to hire out their lorries with drivers to the appellant for Rs. 45 per lorry per day for a run of 75 miles. The wages of the drivers, the taxes payable in respect of the lorries and all running and maintenance charges were to be borne by the Government. One of th...
In Re: Gowleru Kotrappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ83; (1948)2MLJ126
ORDER1. The District Magistrate of Bellary has moved this Court under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, for a decision on the point raised by him regarding the correctness or otherwise of a ruling given by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Hospet, in C.C. No. 1179 of 1946 on his file. From the letter of reference of the District Magistrate it is seen that during the course of the examination of a prosecution witness the vakil for the complainant wanted to get a copy of the report of the police under Section 202, Sub-clause (I), Criminal Procedure Code and file the same as an exhibit in the case. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate held, on the objections of the defence counsel, that the copy of the report is irrelevant. Later on, during the course of the further cross-examination of P.W. 7, the Sub-Inspector of Police, a question was put to him as to whether he found the case of the complainant to be true or not in the course of his enquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. This q...
Vappuluri Venkata Ramamurthi Vs. Pappala Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ268
Panchapagesa Sastry, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. G3 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsiff of Yellamanchilli. The suit was filed by him to eject the defendants and for the recovery of arrears of rent. It was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was a landholder within the meaning of Madras Estates-Land Act that they (the defendants) are ryots entitled to occupancy rights and. could not be ejected and that the claim for arrears of rent would not lie in the Civil Court; The learned District Munsiff held that the plaintiff was only a landholder and upheld the contention of the defendants. While holding therefore that the prayer for ejectment could not be granted he directed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court inasmuch as there was a claim for arrears of rent. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge of Vizagapatam. He too agreed with the view of the District Munsiff and confirmed the order. This revision petition ...
Balaramireddigari Soma Reddi and anr. Vs. Gowkanapalle Thippa Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ282
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The respondent instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises for the recovery of a sum of Rs 3891-12-0 alleged to be due on a promissory note executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff and the promissory note is dated 21st August, 1940. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The plaint itself admits that the borrowing by the first defendant commenced in 1922 and there were renewed promissory notes in between the suit promissory note and the original borrowing of 1922. The plea of the defendants was that though the promissory note was executed after Madras Act IV of 1938 came into force they were 'agriculturists' entitled to relief under the Act. The circumstances under which the suit promissory note came to be executed are set out in paragraph 3 of the written statement of the first defendant, which states that the suit promissory note was not supported by consideration and that it ...
Kopram Dhanalakshmamma and anr. Vs. Gadam Chetty Namberumal Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ385
Mack, J.1. This appeal raises a technical point of a very limited scope and arises out of an order passed by Kunhi Raman, J., on the Original Side. He granted leave to the plaintiff in C.S. No. 32 of 1946 to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and in his order directed the plaintiff to pay the defendant Rs. 500 towards advocate's fee plus other expenses of the defendant in taking out subpoenas to witnesses. That order was passed on 20th January, 1947. On 14th August, 1947, the plaintiff filed a second suit impleading his two children as co-plaintiffs and was met with an objection in the defendant's written statement that her costs had not been paid as a condition precedent required by the High Court's decretal order which gave effect to the judicial order of Kunhi Raman, J. After this objection was taken, the costs amounting to Rs. 618-4-0 were paid into Court on 19th November, 1947, and withdrawn by the learned Counsel for the defendant in the suit without prejudice.2....
Mrs. Sivagnanammal Vs. Thirumagal Mills, Ltd., Gudiyatham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ496
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an application made under the Indian Companies Act for a direction to the first respondent company to rectify the company's register of members so as to include in it the name of the applicant Mrs. Sivagnanammal, as being a member of the respondent company holding in her sole name 50 bonus shares of the company. Sivagnanammal is the widow of one Parasurama Mudaliar who died on the 29th May, 1942. The said Parasurama Mudaliar and one Pithambara Mudaliar were partners of the firm S. R. Ponnuswamy Mudaliar and Brothers and as such held in the first respondent company 100 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each. The shares were registered in the books of the company jointly in their names. During the life time of Parasurama Mudaliar, Pithambara Mudaliar died and the shares which stood jointly in the name of Parasurama Mudaliar and Pithambara Mudaliar were duly transferred in the names of Parasurama Mudaliar and Neelamega Mudaliar, the younger brother of Pithambara ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›