Chennai Court March 1949 Judgments
T.S. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar and anr. Vs. K.M. Samarapuri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad116
Horwill, J.1. In February 1948 two persons to whom we will refer as respondents 1 and 3, brought into existence two companies. One was the Thirunageswaram Weavers' Welfare and Benefit Co., the share holders of whom are weavers working in Thirunageswaram. The other was Ramada and Co., Ltd. a private company consisting of only two share-holders, respondents 1 and 3 themselves. These two persons were presumably responsible for the drawing up of the constitution of the two companies; and it was agreed upon at the same time that a managing agency agreement should be executed, whereby the powers of management in the Thirunageswaram Weavers' Welfare and Benefit Co., Ltd., should be exercised by Ramaswami and Co. Ltd., for a term of 20 years, with a further extension of 20 years upon the resolution of the company at an ordinary general meeting. Unfortunately, these two respondents fell out; and so made it difficult for them to conduct either their own business of Ramaswami and Co., Ltd. or tha...
Tag this Judgment!K. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. the Province of Madras, Represented by the Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ156
Subba Rao, J.1. The only point that arises in this appeal is whether the suit contract is valid, and whether it complies with the provisions of Section 175 of the Government of India Act, 1935.2. The defendant is a merchant carrying on business in Coimbatore. The Government required groundnut oil for use in the Government Oil Factory at Calicut. The superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute wrote Ex. P-1 dated.12th May, 1942, to the defendant asking him to quote his lowest rate for supplying 40 tons of expeller quality groundnut oil for prompt supply. The defendant by his letter, Ex. P-2 dated 15th May, 1942, offered to supply 40 tons of expeller groundnut oil at the rate of Rs. 369 per nett ton of 2,240 lbs., if barrels were supplied by the Superintendent. He agreed to deliver the said oil within three months after acceptance. The defendant received the letter, Ex. P-9, dated 21st May, 1942, from the Superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute, wherein the latter stated that he test...
Tag this Judgment!K. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. Province of Madras, Represented by the Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad194
Subba Rao, J.1. The only point that arises in this appeal is whether the suit contract is valid, and whether it complies with the provisions of Section 175, Government of India Act, 1935.2. The defendant is merchant carrying on business in Coimbatore. The Government required groundnut oil for use in the Government Oil Factory at Calicut. The Superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute wrote EX. p.-1 dated 12th May 1942, to the defendant asking him to quote his lowest rate for supplying 40 tons of expeller quality groundnut oil for prompt supply. The defendant by his letter, Ex. P.-2, dated 15th May 1942, offered to supply 40 tons of expeller groundnut oil at the rate of Rs. 369 per nett ton of 2240lbs, if barrels were supplied by the Superintendent. He agreed to deliver the said oil within three months after acceptance. The defendant received the letter, EX. P.-9, dated 21st May 1942, from the Superintendent of the Kerala Soap Institute, wherein the latter stated that he tested the sam...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Oosman and Company Alias K.M. Khadir Brothers by Managing Proprie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ84
Subba Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two cross suits, O.S. Nos. 13 of 1944 and 14 of 1944, filed by the respective parties for declaration of their title in the trade-marks and for an injunction restraining the other parties from interfering with their rights. One K.A. Kadir Sahib, father of defendants 2 to 6 and husband of the 7th defendant carried on business in partnership with another, S. A. Sattar Sahib, under the name and style of ' S.A. Sattar and K. A. Kadir and Co.' Sattar Sahib died in June 1938. Kadir Sahib, the other partner filed O.S. No. 363 of 1938 on the file of the District Murisiff's Court, Vellore, for a declaration that the firm of ' S.A. Sattar and K. A. Khadir and Co.' was dissolved on 10th June, 1938, and for accounts. The suit was settled by arbitration. The arbitrators, on 25th March, 1940, decided to sell the properties of the firm and the trade-marks separately in auction and also to sell the.amount of .decree dues and the arrears of shop rent in an...
Tag this Judgment!Gummalapura Tagginamatada Kotturuswami Vs. Setra Viravva and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ582
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bellary dated 26th November, 1945, in O.S. No. 39 of 1943. That suit was filed on behalf of all the reversioners by the appellant, Gummalapura Tagginamatada Kotturuswami, head of the Lingayat Togginamutt at Kampli, claiming to be the nearest reversioner of the estate of his natural brother, Setra Kari Virappa, given away in adoption, for a declaration that the adoption of Kotrabasayya, the second defendant, on 11th October, 1942, by Setra Viravva, the first defendant and widow of Kari Virappa, was invalid, as not being in conformity with the will of Kari Virappa, Exhibit P-2(a), dated 10th October, 1920 and on other grounds and not binding on the plaintiff and the other reversioners. The estate is worth about a lakh of rupees. Setra Kari Virappa was given in adoption to one Virappa Devaru and this was referred to in Virappa Devaru's will Exhibit P-1 dated 4th February, 1899. That adoptio...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Oosman and Co. Alias K.M. Khadir Brothers by Managing Proprietor, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad681
Subba Rao, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of two cross suits, O. S. Nos. 13 of 1944 and 14 of 1944, filed by the respective parties for declaration of their title in the trade marks and for an injunction restraining the other parties from interfering with their rights. One K. A. Kadir Sahib, father of defendants 2 to 6 and husband of the 7th defendant carried on business in partnership with another, S. A. Sattar Sahib, under the name and style of 'S. A. Sattar and K. A. Kadir and Co'. Sattar Sahib died in June 1938. Kadir Sahib, the other partner filed O. S. No. 363 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vellore for a declaration that the firm of 'S. A. Sattar and K. A. Kadir and Co' was dissolved on 10-6-1938 and for accounts. The suit was settled by arbitration. The arbitrators, on 25-3-1940, decided to sell the properties of the firm and the trade marks separately in auction and also to sell the amount of decree dues and the arrears of shop rent in another lot. Pursu...
Tag this Judgment!Gummalapura Tegginamatada Kotturuswami Vs. Setra Viravva and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Mad609
Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bellary dated 26th November 1945 in O. S. No. 39 of 1943. The suit was filed on behalf of all the reversioners by the appellant, Gummalapura Tegginamatada Kotturuswami head of the Lingayat Teginamutt at Kampli, claiming to be the nearest reversioner of the estate of his natural brother, Setra Kari Virappa, given away in adoption, for a declaration, that the adoption of Kotrabasayya, the second defendant, on 11th October 1942, by Setra Viravva, the first defendant and widow of Kari Virappa, was invalid, as not being in conformity with the will of Kari Virappa, Ex. P. 2 (a) dated 10th October 1920 and on other grounds and not binding on the plaintiff and the other reversioners. The estate is worth about a lakh of rupees. Setra Kari Virappa was given in adoption to one Virappa Devaru and this was referred to in Verappa Devaru's will,' Ex. P. 1, dated 4th February 1899. That adoption also ha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vellingiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad613
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The charges against the petitioner who was accused 1 in the lower Court were in the alternative (1) under Sections 457 and 380, Penal Code that he broke into the house of P. W. 1 and committed theft of a bicycle; and (2) that he dishonestly possessed M. Os. 2 and 3, a dynamo and a light, which formed part of the bicycle alleged to have been stolen. The conviction it-self was with reference to the second of the charges, punishable under Section 411, Penal Code. The conviction was confirmed on appeal. Hence this petition for revision. 2. The bicycle was missed from the house of P. W. 1 on 6th December 1946. That it mast have been stolen, can admit of no doubt. The bicycle itself was abandoned. Only the light and the dynamo were removed The petitioner was arrested on 27th June 1947. On that day the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded Ex. P-3. The case for the prosecution was that the statements made by the petitioner in Ex. P-3 led to the recovery of M. O. 2 from P. W....
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. M.R. Abdul Hafeez Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ114
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the District Judge of West Tanjore had or had not jurisdiction, to entertain an application under Section 62 of the Lunacy Act for directing a judicial inquisition regarding the lunacy of an idiot, Muhammad Ismail by name, aged 22 on the date of the petition. The petition was dismissed in limine by the District Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it and' that it would be open to the petitioner to renew the application if and when the idiot returned to the jurisdiction of that Court. According to the learned Judge the alleged idiot was a permanent resident in Mysore state and therefore, he had no jurisdiction to direct a judicial inquisition regarding the lunacy of the idiot. This order of the learned District Judge was confirmed on appeal by Horwill, J. The learned Judge was also of the same opinion as the learned District Judge- for the reason that, as the alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Asari Vs. Manickasari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ126
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II of 1929 has any application to succession to the stridhanam property of a Hindu lady or whether the succession is governed by the ordinary rule of Hindu law unaffected by the provisions of Act II of 1929.2. One Rajammal was the last owner of the property now in dispute. Her husband, Arunachala Asari had a sister and a sister's son from whom the plaintiff has purchased the property. The defendants set up title of the paternal uncle's son of Arunachala Asari as heir to the property of Rgjammal. The question is whether the sister and sister's son of Arunachala Asari could be deemed to be stridhanam heirs of Rajammal in preference to paternal uncle's son of Arunachala. If the ordinary Hindu law of succession were to apply it is clear that Rajammal having died without issue, her husband and his sapindas would be the heirs to her stridhanam property. The quest...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »