Chennai Court March 1949 Judgments
Kandi Parambath Elaya Nayan Veetil Talakurussi Atchuthan Nair Vs. Vell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad199
Rajagopalan, J.1. On 11th August 1936, there was a preliminary decree to enforce the mortgage deed dated 15th March 1933 executed by the defendant appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in second appeal. There was a final decree on 17th March 1937 for the sale of the hypotheca. The defendant subsequently applied to have the decree debt scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV [4] of 1938). That application was allowed by the trial Court on 27th December 1938 and the decree debt was scaled down to Rs. 427-3. Against that order the decree-holder filed A. S. No. 190 of 1939 to the District Judge who held that the decree debt ought to be scaled down to Rs. 751-9-8. This was on 22nd March 1938. Against the decree of the appellate Court in A. S. No. 190 of 1939 the defendant filed a second appeal. On 13th July 1942 the High Court set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court in A. S. No. 190 of 1939 on the ground that the appellate Court had ...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Ammal Vs. Ps. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar by Agent, Sivaraman C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ658
Rajagopalan, J.1. The statement of the plaintiff's claim as embodied in the decree in O.S. No. 452 of 1933 was ' defendants have executed a security bond charging the suit properties for the suit debt and other debts. The plaintiff prays for a charge on the plaint properties.' After decreeing the claim on the promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2, the operative portion of the decree with reference to the charge referred to above ran:It is further ordered that the plaint properties hereunder described shall be sold for the realisation of the decree amount. There was no specific provision in the decree calling upon the fifth defendant apart from her liability under the security bond, to pay any portion of the amount, decreed.2. The decree-holder filed E.P. No. 448 of 1943 to realise the amount decreed by the sale of the properties on which a charge had been created. On 7th April, 1944, the decree-holder applied in E.A. No. 445 of 1944 to reduce the upset price. In opposing that ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: I.V. Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ156; (1949)1MLJ600
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one and a half month's rigorous imprisonment by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, and it was confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of East Godavari.2. The petitioner who was a station-master at Dwarapudi was charge-sheeted by the Special Police Establishment for having accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 10 on 23rd April, 1947, from P.W. 2 for booking two iron machinery parts to Bezwada. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the case as the main point on which the revision was argued is one of sanction. The sanction which is required for prose . cuting the petitioner under Act II of 1947 is contained in Ex. P-4 which is as follows:No. P. 426. Madras,22nd July, 1947ToThe Deputy Superintendent of Police,Special Police Establishment, Vepery, Madras.Dear Sir,Ref: I.V. Subba Rao--Station-master, Dwarapudi.With reference to your letter C. ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayanan Vs. the District Board by Its President
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ111
Rajagopalan, J.1. Ex. P-1 is the contract of service which the respondent, the District Board, Salem, and the plaintiff-appellant entered into for the employment of the plaintiff as the medical officer in charge of a rural dispensary for a' period of three years. The plaintiff was first posted to Elachipalayam as medical officer of the rural dispensary there. On 3rd June, 1941, the services of the plaintiff were terminated (vide Ex. P-4). On appeal to the Government, the plaintiff was reinstated in service on 31st December, 1941. He was out of office between 3rd, June, 1941 and 31st December, 1941.2. The plaintiff followed up his reinstatement by instituting the suit out of which; this second appeal arises. He claimed Rs. 287-7-0 by way of subsidy from the second defendant, Rs. 338-11-0 by way of damages from the first defendant, the District Board, and, in the alternative, the entire sum of Rs. 626-2-0 as damages from the first defendant, the District Board. The trial Court held that ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayanan Vs. the Dist. Board by Its President
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad799
Rajagopalan, J.1. Ex. P. 1 is the contract of service which the resp., the Dist. Board, Salem, & the pitf.-applt. entered into for the employment of the pltf. as the medical officer in charge of a rural dispensary for a period of three years. The pltf. was first posted to Elachipalayam as medical officer of the rural dispensary there. On 3-6-1941, the services of the pltf, were terminated (vide Ex. P. 4). On appeal to the Govt. the pltf. was reinstated in service on 31-12-1941. He was out of office between 3-6-1941 & 31-12-1941.2. The pltf. folld. up his reinstatement by instituting the suit out of which this second appeal arises. He claimed Rs. 287-7-0 by way of subsidy from deft. 2, Rs. 338-11-0 by way of damages from deft. 1 the Dist. Board, &, in the alternative, the entire sum of Rs. 626-2-0 as damages from deft. 1, the District Board. The trial Ct. held that the dismissal of the pltf. was wrongful; but the learned Dist. Munsif upheld deft. 1's contention, that the suit was barred...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Seshachariar Vs. T.S. Pattammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ65
Mack, J.1. This petition raises a point of Court-fee. Plaintiff sued for a declaration of his right to a 4th share in Gamica mirasi office in a temple, in other words, for the office of a temple-cook entitled to certain emoluments and perquisites. He valued his suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 3,100 and paid, for the declaration he sought court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17-B of Schedule II. He asked for certain consequential reliefs. One of them was for a direction to the temple Committee by a mandatory injunction to cancel certain orders they passed and to permit him to perform the duties of this office and enjoy all the emoluments attached to it. He valued this relief for injunction at Rs. 100 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 11-3-0. There was also another prayer for an account, with regard to the. emoluments, for the year prior to the suit with which we are not concerned.2. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the objection of the Court-fee examiner and found that the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayanan Iyer Vs. Sri Poovananathaswami Temple, Through Execut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ171
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This case was referred to a Full Bench because Mack, J., before whom it originally came for disposal, considered it desirable that the conflict of decisions as regards maintainability of suits by de facto trustees should be resolved by reference to a Full Bench for the guidance of all courts in the Presidency. The appeal arose out of a suit filed for the recovery of possession of certain property alleged to belong to Sri Swarnamalai Kadiresan Swami Temple and alienated by one Amavasai Paradesi as its trustee to the first defendant on 13th May, 1940, under a sale deed and under an othi deed. The plaintiff was described as Sri Puvananda Swami, through its Executive Officer, C.S. Pillai. The plaintiff's right was in the main based upon the terms of a consent decree passed in O.S. No. 64 of 1937 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Koilpatti, which was a suit filed by the plaintiff Devasthanam against Amavasai Paradesi and others for possession of the ...
Tag this Judgment!O. Rm. M. Sp. S.V. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1949
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ8
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in accordance with a direction given to' him by this Court under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The reference involves the interpretation of Section 25(3) of the Act.3. The petitioner and his brothers were members of an undivided Hindu family, and when joint the family carried on a money-lending business in India and in the Federated Malay Slates. The business was of long standing and had been assessed to income-tax under the Act of 1918. On the 2nd June, 1938, the joint status was severed. Thereafter the members of the family continued the business in the same places as partners. The financial year with which this reference is concerned commenced on the 13th April, 1938. On the 22nd December, 1939, the petitioner claimed that the income of the family from the 13th April, 1938, to the 2nd June, 1938, was not liable to be taxed by reason of the provisions of Sub...
Tag this Judgment!The Jawahar Mills, Ltd. Vs. Sha Mulchand and Co., Ltd. (In Liquidation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ88
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Clark, J., arising out of proceedings under Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act to rectify the register. The respondent-company was the applicant and the application was granted by the learned Judge. The substantial prayer in the application was in these terms:Why the share register of Jawahar Mills, Ltd., should not be rectified by restoring the name Sha Mulchand & Co., Ltd., to the said register in respect of 5,000 shares numbering 15,048 to 20,047. Jawahar Mills, Ltd., are the appellants in this appeal. The application was: filed by the Liquidator of Sha Mulchand & Co., Ltd., Salem, which Was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court in O.P. No. 199 of 1944.2. Jawahar Mills, Ltd., the appellant, is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Sha Mulchand & Co., Ltd., were the managing agents of Jawahar Mills, Ltd., from the starting of the company till 30th June, 1939, on which date they resigned the m...
Tag this Judgment!Kayanna Variyan Madhathil Ramunni Variyar and Manger of Puthravakasam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ556
1. The point that arises for consideration in revision turns upon the construction of Section 4, Sub-section (5) of the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act (Madras Act XVII of 1946). The section reads as follows Where a suit or other proceeding is stayed under Sub-section (1), the tenant or ryot shall, so long as this Act is in force, deposit or continue to deposit in Court, for payment to the landlord, each year's rent as it accrues due, within a period of two months from the date on which it becomes payable or such further period or periods not exceeding two months in the aggregate as may be allowed by the Court.The lower Court held that it had no power to extend the time beyond four months from the date the rent accrued due. The Sub-section does not in express terms confine the jurisdiction of a Court to extend only up to a continuous period of four months. Mr. Variar for the respondent argues that the words 'further period' in Sub-section (5) can only mean a further period in c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »