Chennai Court March 1949 Judgments
K.R. Kesavan Vs. the South Indian Bank, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ70
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of our learned brother, Yahya Ali, J., dismissing the appeal perferred against the order of the Master. 2. The respondent to this appeal is the South Indian Bank, Ltd., which instituted a suit, C. S. No. 480 of 1947, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,310-10-0 from the defendant. The suit was instituted under summary procedure provided under Order 7, Rule 6 of the Original Side Rules and under Order 37, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The claim was based on a cheque for a sum of Rs. 10,000 dated 12th April, 1947, drawn by the appellant on the Indian Bank, Ltd., Thyagarayanagar, in favour of one K.C.M.C. Rathnasabapathi Nadar and Sons. The drawee of the cheque negotiated it to the plaintiff bank and it was alleged in the plaint that it was endorsed to it for valuable consideration and that the plaintiff is a holder in due course. The cheque was presented to the Indian Bank by the plaintiff but it was dishon...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: L. Papayyaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ34
ORDERSomasundaeam, J.1. This is a petition to quash the charge on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction. The facts of the case are those,2. The petitioner has been prosecuted for having used three documents along with his-application to the Madras Public Services Commission for admission to a competitive examination. The three documents are said to be forged documents. They were posted at Vizagapatam on t7th July 1947 along with his application and received in the office of the Public Services Commission on 21st July 1917. After examining eight prosecution witnesses the lower Court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences Under Section 465 and Section 405 read with Section 471, penal Code.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these documents along with his application having been posted at Vizagapatam the offence of using forged documents is complete at Vizagapatam and, therefore, the only Court which has territorial jurisdiction fo...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamma Shedthi Vs. Korathu Hengsu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ413
Raghava Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by respondents 1 to 6 before us in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara for a declaration that the decree obtained by the appellant against the family of themselves and respondents 7 to 9 and 19 in O.S. No. 387 of 1936 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Mangalore did not bind them. That was a suit filed by the appellant as releasee of the suit properties from the auction purchaser thereof in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 39 of 1928, Sub-Court, South Kanara at Mangalore, which had been obtained on the basis of a mortgage effected by the present fifth defendant, by the father of the present defendants 6 to 9 and by the father of the present defendants 10 to 12, who together with their sons and the 13th defendant, their step-brother were the mulgars of the suit properties. The defendants in O.S. No. 387 of 1936 who contested it by filing a written statement were the mulgeni tenant...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Kesavan Vs. the South Indian Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad226
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of our learned brother, Yahya Ali J., dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the Master.2. The respondent to this appeal is the South India Bank Ltd., which instituted a suit C. S. No. 480 of 1947, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10310-10-0 from the defendant. The suit was instituted under summary procedure provided under 0rder 7, Rule 6, Original Side Rules and under 0rder 37, Rule 2, Civil P. C. The claim was based on a cheque for a sum of Rs 10,000 dated 12th April 1947 drawn by the appellant on the Indian Bank Ltd., Thyagarayanagar, in favour of one K. C. M. C. Bathnasabapathi Nadar and Sons. The drawee of the cheque negotiated if to the plaintiff Bank and it was alleged in the plaint that it was endorsed to it for valuable consideration and that the plaintiff is a holder in due course. The cheque was presented to the Indian Bank by the plaintiff but it was dishonoured on 16th April 1947. The...
Tag this Judgment!Kalakkathankandi Chathan Vs. Valia Parambath Cheeru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ622
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a partition suit in which a decree was passed for the division of a small house situated in a paramba or garden about ten cents in extent, into two shares, the plaintiff being entitled to one half and defendants 2 to 6 who are strangers but who took an assignment of the other half share from the first defendant, who is plaintiff's brother, being entitled to the other half. Complications ensued in effecting a partition of this small house and garden, as may well be expected. Two commissioners appear to have been appointed--for what reason neither of the learned advocates can say--who appear to have divided the garden itself into two portions one of which they proposed to be allotted to the plaintiff and the other to defendants 2 to 6. They valued the house itself at Rs. 1,495-4-2 and proposed its allotment to the defendants. It would appear that defendant No. 1 and defendants 2 to 6 are all residing in this house. The Commissioners proposed ...
Tag this Judgment!Gudimetla China Varahalu Vs. Gudimetla Reddayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ12
1. The petitioner is a plaintiff whose application for a refund of court-fee of Rs. 277-7-o the learned Subordinate Judge rejected in a rather cryptic-order which reads as follows:The ruling does not apply to this case. Hence rejected. He does not say what the facts are or what the ruling relied on is. The facts as placed before me are briefly these:The petitioner filed a suit, against his own father for recovery of about Rs. 3,000. He paid a Court-fee of Re. 0-12-0 on his plaint and was on 13-9-1946 given seven days' time for payment of deficit court-fee. He re-presented the plaint only on 7-1-1946 accompanied by an application for condonation of the delay in re-presentation and also with deficit court-fee of Rs. 276-11-0. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed and on' application to refund the court-fee under Section 151, Civil-Procedure Code, the learned Subordinate Judge passed this order which is now sought to be revised.2. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees ...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Raju Chettiar and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ74
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court in Referred Case No. 19 of 1946. As a question arose before us and was discussed whether an appeal lay to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court, we may deal with the point briefly.2. Under Section 3 of Act I of 1948, as from the appointed day, that is, the first day of February, 1948, an appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from any judgment: to which the said Act applies. A ' judgment to which this Act applies ' is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act as:any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in a civil case from which a direct appeal could have been, brought to His Majesty in Council, either with or without special leave, if this Act have not been passed. Undoubtedly, the judgment of this Court was passed in a civil case, because the category of civil cases excludes only criminal cases from the application of the enactment. The question...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.S. Mani Vs. the District Magistrate and the Superintendent, Centra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ310
Satyanarayana Rao J.1. Crl. M.P. No. 190 of 1949. This and the connected petitions under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code were heard together as they raise common questions of law under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1 of 1947.2. The facts and the contentions peculiar to the other petitions will be dealt with separately. Under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act the District Magistrate, Madura, passed an order of detention, dated 1st April, 1948, and the applicant was arrested on the same day. He was kept in police custody at Madura till the 3rd April, when he was removed to the Central Jail, Vellore. The grounds of detention were communicated to the applicant on 24th April, 1948, and he submitted his explanation on the 10th May, 1948. The Government referred the matter to the Advisory Council on 14th February, 1949 and the matter is still pending with it. This application was filed on 18th January, 1949, and till now no final order was passed by the Government under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.S. Mani Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad162
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This and the connected petitions under Section 491, Criminal P. C., were heard together as they raise common questions of law under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, I [1] of 1947.2. The facts and the contentions peculiar to the other petitions will be dealt with separately. Under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act the District Magistrate, Madura, passed an order of detention dated 1st April 1948 and the applicant was arrested on the same day. He was kept in police custody at Madura till 3rd April when he was removed to the Central Jail, Vellore. The grounds of detention were communicated to the applicant on 24th April 1948, and he submitted his explanation on 10th May 1948. The Government referred the matter to the Advisory Council on 14th February 1949 and the matter is still pending with it. This application was filed on 18th January 1949 and till now no final order was passed by the Government under Section 3 (5) of the Act.3. Mr. N. S. Mani, the learned...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Raju Chettiar and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad590
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court in Referred Case No. 19 of 1946. As a question arose before us and was discussed whether an appeal lay to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court, we may deal with the point briefly.2. Under Section 3 of Act I [1] of 1948, as from the appointed day, that is, 1-2-1948, an appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from any judgment to which the said Act applies. A 'judgment to which this Act applies' is defined in Section 2 (b) of the Act as 'any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in a civil case from which a direct appeal could have been brought to His Majesty in Council, either with or without special leave, if this Act have not been passed.'Undoubtedly, the judgment of this Court was passed in a civil case, because the category of civil cases excludes only criminal cases from the application of the enactment. The question then is whether the judgm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »