Chennai Court February 1949 Judgments
Swarna Rajamma Vs. Thota Venkiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ13
Mack, J.1. The petitioner obtained an order for stay in the High Court on 3rd September, 1948, which was made absolute on her furnishing security in. Rs. 3,000 to the satisfaction of the Sub-Court, Bapatla, within six weeks from, that date and also depositing some costs and mesne profits within the same period-The petitioner tendered a draft security bond on 17th. September, 1948. Her application was returned with some objections. She re-presented it on 4th October,. 1948. It was then posted on 7th October, 1948, to 18th October, 1948 for objections. On that date the Subordinate Judge held that the time allowed by the High Court order had expired on 15th October, 1948 and dismissed, the petitioner's application; and also disallowed time for filing objections to the draft security bond. This point has already been considered and decided by Yahya Ali, J., in Ganapathi Naicker v. Govindarajulu Naidu : AIR1947Mad70 . He held following the view taken by Happell J. in Rangaswami Nadar v. Pic...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Barbara Goorgina Debnam Vs. Mr. Fredrick Cecil Burnie Debnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ550
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application by the respondent in O.S.A. No. 85 of 1948 for a direction from this Court to the appellant to pay her a sum of Rs. 350 as counsel's fee and the amount required for buying printed papers to enable her to conduct the appeal, or in the alternative, to direct the appellant to furnish security for costs of the appeal. There was also a prayer that the appellant may be directed to pay her the taxed costs of the suit, but since the application was taken out, the appellant has paid this amount. The respondent was the wife of the appellant.2. It is clear from the authorities which have been reviewed in a recent judgment of Yahya Ali, J., in Mrs. Yvonme Gwendoline Marie Lewis v. Aloysiu Lewis Application No. 3141 of 1948. Since reported in : (1949)1MLJ547 that in a matrimonial suit the wife will be entitled to an order against her husband for payment of the costs of the suit in advance to enable her to conduct the suit. But no authority has been bro...
Tag this Judgment!Swarna Rajamma Vs. Thota Venkaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Mad601
Mack, J.1. The petitioner obtained an order for stay in the High Court on 3rd September 1948 which was made absolute on her furnishing security in Rs. 3,000 to the satisfaction of the Sub-Court, Bapatla, within six weeks from that date and also depositing some costs and mesne profits within the same period. The petitioner tendered a draft security bond on nth September 1948. Her application was returned with some objections. She represented it on 4th October 1948. It was them posted on 7th October 1948 to 18th October 1948 for objections. On that date the Subordinate Judge held that the time allowed by the High Court order had expired on 15th October 1948 and dismissed the petitioner's application and also disallowed time for filing objections to the draft security bond. This point has already been considered and decided by Yahya All J. in 'Ganpathi Naicksr v. Govindarajulu Naidxj', : AIR1947Mad70 . He held following the view taken by Happell J. in 'Rangasami Nadar v. Pichaimani Nadar'...
Tag this Judgment!Annamreddi Pichireddi Vs. Sri Vighneswara Swami Varu of Nagamambapuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ536
Mack, J.1. The Collector acting under Section 44-B(2)(d) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act is not a Civil or Revenue Court whose orders are liable to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petition is dismissed as not maintainable with costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Om Prakasha Gupta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ143; (1949)1MLJ554
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code to issue an order in the nature of Habeas Corpus to produce the body of the petitioner who is now in the custody of the Commissioner of Police, Madras, and to set him at liberty.2. The petitioner was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Intelligence section, Madras City Police, on 22nd February, 1949 and was produced by him before the Commissioner of Police on 23rd February, 1949 and was remanded to custody for a period of ten days. The arrest as appears from the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police was made under Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section reads as follows:A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. This section, it must be noted, occurs in the chapt...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Thiruvengadasami Naidu Vs. Municipal Health Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ823; (1949)1MLJ488
Govinda Menon, J.1. This case came to be heard before this Full Bench on a reference made by one of us (Govinda Menon, J.) and Govindarajachari, J., as the matter is of great importance and the authorities on the point are conflicting.2. The facts are simple and do not admit of any doubt. The petitioner was prosecuted before the Court of the Second Class Bench of Magistrates, Karaikudi, for an offence under Section 249 read with Section 313 of the District Municipalities Act, in that he, on 14th August, 1946, was running a rotary oil engine without a licence from the Karaikudi Municipality and 'despite the refusal by the said Municipality to issue a licence for the year 1946-47. A particular area within the confines of the Karaikudi Municipality had been declared a ' residential area ' under Section 89 (1) of the Madras Public Health Act and the same was published in the Ramnad District Gazette, on 24th March, 1943. The result of such a notification is that in that particular area the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chiratla Venkatarayudu and anr. Vs. Chiratla Seshamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ552
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant to her late husband Venkatapathi is valid in law. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the lower Court, are admittedly the nearest presumptive reversioners, they being the uncle's son's sons of the last male holder Venkatapathi. In the plaint, even the factum of the adoption was denied, but at the trial it was not questioned. The first defendant, the widow, applied to the plaintiffs on 1st November, 1942, for their consent to adopt the second defendant to her husband. The second defendant was her sister's son's son. The plaintiffs refused their consent by their letter, dated 12th December, 1942 (Ex. D-13). Thereafter, the first defendant obtained the consent of four other persons alleged to be reversioners more remote than the plaintiffs. The evidence of their consent is furnished by Exs. D-14, D-15 and D-16. Under Ex. D-14, one Chiratla Satheyya gave hi...
Tag this Judgment!Bodi Venkataswami and ors. Vs. Adada Mahalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ602
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Defendants I to 4 have preferred this second appeal from the appellate decree of the District Judge of Vizagapatam declaring the title of the plaintiff and granting her an injunction in respect of a plot of land of the extent of about 12 cents and a palmyra hedge situate therein in the village of Jannavaram in the Vizianagaram zamindari. The litigation which concerns property of a trifling value has had a long and sinuous course coming, as it does, for the fifth time for adjudication by a judicial tribunal. The melwaram in the land vests in the Zamindar of Vizianagaram within the limits of whose estate the property is situate. The Court of Wards had been in management of the Vizianagaram Zamindari during the period with which we are concerned in this case. The District Munsif who first tried the suit dismissed it on 26th October, 1943, on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved her title to the plot in question or her possession of it within 12 years of sui...
Tag this Judgment!Chandana Satyanarayana and anr. Vs. Sri Venkatachalaswami Temple of Gu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ615
ORDERMack, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question of court-fee. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 456 of 1938, in which they and their deceased elder brother were parties, was a nullity, and not binding on them, and for an injunction, restraining the plaintiff in that suit, which was a temple, from executing that decree against them. That suit was one to recover possession of about 24 acres of land, of which, it is averred in the plaint and it is also common ground before me, the plaintiffs are still in possession. On the plaint, the plaintiffs paid ad valorem court-fee on half the value of the immoveable property under the proviso to Section 7(iv)(c). Their suit was dismissed; and they filed an appeal, paying the same court-fee under this provision. The learned District Judge held that the correct court-fee payable by them on the plaint and the appeal memorandum was under Section 7(iv)(a) on the full value of the subject-matter of th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R.B.S.S.N. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad835
Subba Rao, J. 1. This is a revision against the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Mathurai, in C. C. No. 7 of 1947 overruling the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners.2. The accused are the directors of the Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., Pasumalai, Mathurai. Accused 1, 4 and 5 are partners in Messrs. S. S. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar and company, who are the managing agents of the said mills. In G. O. No. 1629 (Development) dated 15th April 1947 the Government appointed an Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon the industrial disputes existing between the workers and the management of the textile mills in the Madras Province. After enquiry the tribunal gave an award increasing the emoluments of the workers and the same was accepted by the Government in G. O. No. 3080 (Development) dated 15th July 1947. A copy of the award was duly communicated to the management of the accused's mill for implementation. As they have not implemented the award the Government of Madras a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »