Chennai Court February 1949 Judgments
Miss Revathi by Next Friend and Guardian S. Parthasarathy Vs. M. Venka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ594
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application by the owner of premises bearing municipal door No. 91, Mowbrays Road, Alwarpet, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes in H. R. A. No. 264 of 1948, dated 24th August, 1948. That appeal arose out of an application filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction of the first respondent from the premises on the ground that he had committed default in the payment of the rent for January, 1947. One of the main pleas of the respondent was that the application was not maintainable because of the dismissal of a prior application made by the petitioner to the Rent Controller on 5th June, 1947. On that date, neither the petitioner nor her Advocate was present when the application was called, and therefore the petition was dismissed for default. The respondent also raised other pleas on the merits. The Rent Controller by his order dated 29th January, 1948, pas...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Bhagavathi Amman Temple by Poojaris and Trustees and Others Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ609
Raghava Rao, J.1. The appellants here-Sri Bhagavathi Amman Temple represented by three of its pujari trustees-sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for recovery of the lands described in plaint A schedule and for profits in respect thereof. The three trustees representing the temple alleged that defendants 1 to 11 were tenants at will liable to be evicted and that defendants 13 to 15 were their co-trustees who not having joined them in suing were impleaded as pro forma defendants. The 12th defendant was the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board who like defendants 13 to 15 supported the case of the plaintiffs-trustees that the suit lands which had been originally granted by a Mysore King and were later confirmed by the East India Company and later still by the British Indian Government at the time of the Inam Settlement belonged to the deity in both the warams. It was also part of the plaint case that the decree of the District Munsif's Court of Dharapuram in O.S. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Goripalayan Durga Through Its Present Manager, Sheik Ibrahim Sahib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad630
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. These four second appeals arise out of four suits, two of which were instituted by two ryots for the grant of patta under Section 55, Madras Estates Land Act for Fasli 1353 and two by the landholder against the same two ryots for arrears of rent due for fasli 1351 to fasli 1353 under Section 77 of that Act. The ryots were the appellants in all the four appeals preferred to the District Judge of Madura from whose decision the landholder has preferred these four second appeals. The main question which arose for determination in all these four suits and appeals was whether the landholder was entitled to levy a charge for water drawn by the ryots from the tank of the landholder for cultivating dry lands comprised in their holdings with wet crops. It has been found by the learned District Judge that the solum of the tank vested in the landholder; that the water stored in the tank became his and that for water drawn from the tank by them, the ryots were liable to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Thayyal and anr. Vs. Baggyathammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ484
Mack, J.1. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 6 of 1948 on the file of the District Court, West Tanjore. They seek to revise the order of the District Judge on an application they filed to excuse delay in filing 19 documents. The learned District Judge excused the delay in the case of 11 documents as regards which there was no opposition from the plaintiff; but he declined to excuse the delay in the case of 8 documents, namely, Nos. 12 to 19 on the list. His order is a very brief one and reads as follows:The counter-petitioner does not oppose so far as items 1 to 11 are concerned. I have heard the pleader for the petitioner. I do not consider that the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for the admission of documents at such a late stage. I admit items 1 to 11 and dismiss the petition for the rest. 2. The relevant facts are these : Issues were framed on 15th September, 1948, and time was given for the filing of documents till 18th October, 1948. This was done u...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Revathi by Next Friend and Guardian, S. Parthasarathy Vs. M. Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad745
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appln by the owner of premises bearing municipal door No. 91 Mowbrays Road, Alwarpet, for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari' to quash the order of the Chief Judge of the Ct of Small Causes in H. R. A. No. 264 of 1948, dated 24-8-1948. That appeal arose out of an appln filed by the petnr before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction of the first resp from the premises on the ground that he had committed default in the payment of the rent for January 1947. One of the main pleas of the resp was that the appln was not maintainable because of the dismissal of a prior appln made by the petnr to the Rent Controller on 5-6-1947. On that date, neither the petnr nor her advocate was present when the appln was called, & therefore the petn was dismissed for default. The resp also raised other pleas on the merits. The Bent Controller by his order dated 29-1-1948, passed an order for eviction of the resp. He found that the resp committed default in payment of the r...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Bhagavathi Amman Temple by Pujaris and Trustees and ors. Vs. Kris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad788
Raghava Rao, J. 1. The appellants here--Sri Bhagavathi Amman Temple represented by three of its pujari trustees--used in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for recovery of the lands described in the plaint A schedule and for profits in respect thereof. The three trustees representing the temple alleged that defts. 1 to 11 were tenants at will liable to be evicted and that defts. 13 to 15 were their co-trustees who not having joined them in suing were impleaded as pro forma defts. Defendant 12 was the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board who like defts. 13 to 15 supported the case of the pltfs.-trustees that the suit lands which had been originally granted by a Mysore King and were later confirmed by the East India Co. and later still by the British Indian Govt. at the time of the Inam Settlement belonged to the deity in both the warams. It was also part of the plaint case that the decree of the Diat. Munsif's Court of Dharapuram in O. S. No. 225 of 1939 on its file dat...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ibrahim Maracayar Vs. Ismail Maracayar Power of Attorney Agen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ173
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The accused is the petitioner herein. The petition is to quash the proceedings in C. O, No. 2828 of 1948 on the file of the Special Honorary Magistrate of Egmore,2. The complainant is the daughter of the petitioner herein. There were some misunder-standing between her husband and her father over some money transaction and when a claim was made for the return of the moneys alleged to have been advanced by the complainant, the petitioner herein wrote a letter to his daughter in which he has stated that as he has got only old and torn shoes he has placed an order for better ones and that as soon as he gets them he will send them over to her and her husband. He also stated that old ones may not be satisfactory and therefore he was arranging to send new shoes. On this, the complainant's husband as her power of attorney agent, has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence Under Section 504, Penal Code.3. The petitioner has filed this revision petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Tansukhrai M. Karundia Vs. the Official Liquidator, Andhra Paper Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ66
Panchapagesa Sastry, J.1. This is an application to vary the order of the Official Liquidator of the Andhra Paper Mills Co., Ltd., (in liquidation) disallowing the claim of. the applicant to have a charge over the movable assets of the company for a sum of Rs. 1,01,172-15-2. The liquidator admitted that the amount claimed was due, but he disallowed the claim to rank as secured creditor on the ground that the document creating, the security was not registered with the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Cocanada, as required by Section 109 of the Indian Companies Act. This order further states that in any event, the amount of Rs. 34,000 included in the claim representing payment made on 15th July, 1947 to Messrs. Natwarlal Shamaldas and Co. cannot be treated as a secured debt. No grounds for the same are however mentioned in the order.2. The applicant Tansukhrai M. Karundia, claims to have advanced the aforesaid sums in circumstances set out below. The Andhra Paper Mills would...
Tag this Judgment!Tansukhrai M. Karundia Vs. the Official Liquidator, Andhra Paper Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Mad595
Panchapagesa Sastry, J.1. This is an application to vary the order of the Official Liquidator of the Andhra Paper Mills Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) disallowing the claim of the applicant to have a charge over the movable assets of the company for a sum of Rs. 1,01,172-15-2. The liquidator admitted that the amount claimed was due, but he disallowed the claim to rank as secured creditor on the ground that the document creating the security was not registered with the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Cocanada, as required by Section 109 of the Indian Companies Act. This order further states that in any event, the amount of Rs. 34,000 included in the claim representing payment made on 15th July 1947 to Messrs. Natwarlal Shamaldas and Co., cannot be treated as a secured debt. No grounds for the same are however mentioned in the order.2. The applicant Tansukhrai M. Karundia claims to have advanced the aforesaid sums in circumstances set out below. The Andhra Paper Mills would appe...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ibrahim Maracayar Vs. Ismail Maracayar, Power-of-attorney Age ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Mad760
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The accused is the petitioner herein. The petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2328 of 1948 on the file of the special Honorary Magistrate of Egmore.2. The complainant is the daughter of the petitioner herein. There were some misunderstanding between her husband and her father over some money transaction and when a claim was made for the return of the moneys alleged to have been advanced by the complainant, the petitioner herein wrote a letter to his daughter in which he has stated that as ho has got only old and torn shoes he has placed an order for better ones and that as soon as he gets them he will send them over to her and her husband He also stated that old ones may not be satisfactory and therefore he was arranging to send new shoes. On this, the complainant's husband as her power of attorney agent has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 504, Penal Code.3. The petitioner hag filed this revision petition to q...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »