Chennai Court March 1949 Judgments
K. Dasappa Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1949
Reported in: 1950CriLJ133
Yiswanatha Saatri, J.1. This is an applies-tion by a person detained under the Madias Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1917 (Madras Act I of 1957) to this Court for the issue of a direction in the nature of Jialeas corpus under. Section 431, Criminal P.C. The applicant was arrested on 25th April I9i8 Under Section 151, Criminal P.C. by the police authorities and an order for his detention wag passed by the District Magistrate of South Kanara on 29th April 1948. On 10th June 1948 the applicant received a communication from the Provincial Government containing the grounds for his detention, He submitted his explanation in due course. The advisory com. mittee considered the matter and we are informed that on 17th February 1943, the Government o Madras have passed final orders for the detention of the applicant.2. Mr. N. S. Mani, the learned Counsel for the applicant, raised four grounds in support of his application. The first contention was that the order for detention itself showed that...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Alias Muthukaruppan Vs. N.S. Radhakrishna Sarma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ741
Raghava Rao, J.1. The facts of the application under Order 21, Rule 16 and Order 34, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, out of which this appeal arises, are as; follows:2. The appellant here was the second respondent to the application in the Court below, while the 1st respondent here was the applicant there. The application prayed that the assignment in favour of the applicant of rights under the final decree in a mortgage suit, O.S. No. 139 of 1926, Sub-Court, Madura, by the decree-holder therein, may be recognised, and that a decree may be passed against the first judgment-debtor, the father of the second personally and against the joint family assets of the two defendants for Rs. 34,538-14-11, being the unrealised balance still outstanding after the sale in execution of the final decree in the suit. The assignment relied on as the basis of the application was one effected by the original decree-holder after the confirmation of the execution sale under the final decree. The deed of assig...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dasappa Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ583
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This is an application by a person detained under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act (I of 1947) to this Court for the issue of a direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was arrested on the 25th April, 1948, under Section 151, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Police authorities and an order for his detention was passed by the District Magistrate of South Kanara on the 29th April, 1948. On the 10th June, 1948, the applicant received a communication from the Provincial Government containing the grounds for the detention. He submitted his explanation in due course. The Advisory Committee considered the matter and we are informed that on the 17th February, 1949, the Government of Madras have passed final orders for the detention of the applicant.2. Mr. N.S. Mani, the learned Counsel for the applicant, raised four grounds in support of his application. The first contention was that the order for detent...
Tag this Judgment!Vellingiri Naicken and anr. Vs. Sree Patteswaraswami Devasthanam by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ558
P. V. Rajamannar, J.1. There is no substance in this civil revision petition. The petitioners applied, for leave to file in forma pauperis a suit on their own behalf and on behalf of the public residents of Perur for certain reliefs including a relief of declaration that the properties in suit were communal lands available to the residents of Perur for public charitable purposes and for securing to the residents the benefits arising out of such user of the suit properties. The only question which arose before the learned Subordinate Judge was whether the petitioners could be held to be paupers within the meaning of Order 33, rule-I read with Explanation (iii) of the Civil Procedure Code. I entirely agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that if the suit is on behalf of the residents of Perur, it cannot be said that they are not possessed of sufficient means to enable the court-fee to be paid. Under Explanation (iii) when a plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question of ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Narayanaswamy Aiyar Vs. S.R. Muthurethnam Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ620
Rajagopalan, J.1. The facts are not in dispute. Sitaram Dikshitar, the father of the third defendant, owned S. No. 199/1. Sami Aiyar, the grandfather of defendants 1 and 2, owned S. No. 227/3 and 227/2. Sitarama Dikshitar and Sami Aiyar effected an exchange of their properties under Ex. P-2 in 1901. Subsequently, the father of defendants 1 and 2 sold S. No. 199/1 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was dispossessed of S. No. 199/1 under the decree in O.S. No. 53 of 1932 in 1940 by a person who claimed superior title. The plaintiff then laid this suit to recover possession of S. No. 227/3 and 227/2 from the 3rd defendant and his alienee, the fourth defendant. The learned District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that Section 119 of the Transfer of Property Act, as it stood at the time of exchange, evidenced by Ex. P-2 of 1901, did not entitle the plaintiff, who was himself not a party to the contract of exchange, to recover the property exchanged. The learned Subordinate ...
Tag this Judgment!The Kshatriya Sandarare Nadar Uravinmurai at Usilampatti, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1949
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ608
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is the first defendant. He was sued by the plaintiff who claimed to be a reversioner to the estate of one Malayappa Nadar on the death of his daughter Thillaiammal who died in 1943. Malayappa in his lifetime sold a half share in the suit property which is a plot of land 266 acres in extent in the village of Usilampatti in Mathurai district. Subsequent to his death, the first defendant, which incidentally is a Nadar trust institution, purchased the other half share from Thillaiammal in 1919. It is this half share which the plaintiff as a distant reversioner seeks to recover. The District Munsiff held that he was entitled to file this suit on a court-fee of Rs. 2-3-0 paying ten times the assessment of Rs. 4 per acre as on land governed by Section 7, Clause v(b).2. The history of the case is rather extraordinary as the same learned Distric Munsiff returned a prior plaint filed in O.S. No. 335 of 1945 by this very same plaintiff for precisely the same relief as re...
Tag this Judgment!Ediga Hanumanthappa and anr. Vs. Eeranti Seethayya and Company Consist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ217
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question referred to the decision of the Full Bench is, when a decree is passed in favour of a firm, can payment outside Court to one partner/decree-holder bind the other partner/decree-holders Though the question is in general terms, it is necessary to state the facts of the case to understand the implications of the question. On 18th August, 1942, the District Munsif of Anantapur passed a preliminary decree for sale in a suit on a mortgage in favour of the firm of Eeranti Seethayya and company against the' two defendants who are the appellants before us. The firm was represented by its managing partner, Eeranti Seethayya. The final decree was duly made on 17th July, 1943. On the 12th October, 1944, the execution petition (E.P. No. 467 of 1944) was filed by the decree-holder firm by its managing partner, Eeranti Seethayya, to recover a sum of Rs. 3,342-8-0, by sale of the mortgaged properties. While this application was pending, on 22nd March 1945, the judg...
Tag this Judgment!The Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, Ltd., by Its Managing Agents, S.S.N. La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ132
Raghava Rao, J.1. An interesting question of company law is raised for determination by this appeal. The material facts which are more or less beyond the pale of controversy may be briefly stated. 2. The plaintiff, a shareholder of the defendant, which is a limited company fell into arrears in respect of the third and fourth instalments of Rs. 1,250 each of the total share amount of Rs. 5,000 payable by him on his 50 shares of the face -value of Rs. 100 each, having duly paid the amounts of the first and second instalments of Rs. 1,250 each, payable along with the application for shares and at the time of the allotment, thereof respectively. There was a meeting of the Directors of the company held on 31st October, 1928, as shown by the entries, Exhibits D-4 and D-5, in the minutes book at which, firstly, it was resolved that the first call (i.e., the call in respect of the third instalment) made as proposed in the circular letters, Exhibit D-2 series, should be confirmed and, secondly,...
Tag this Judgment!Adiyalath Katheesumma and anr. Vs. Adiyalath Beechu Alias Umma and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ268
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition by 15 out of 20. members of a Moppla Marumakkattayam tarwad. The first defendant in the suit is the karnavan of the tarwad, and defendants 2 to 5 are the remaining members. The sixth defendant was impleaded in the suit on the allegation that the first defendant had created a sham lease in his name over an item of the family property in anticipation of the suit for partition. The plaintiffs claimed a share in the properties described in Schedules B and C attached to the plaint. A preliminary decree for partition was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry directing a division of the properties belonging to the tarwad as found by him into 20 equal shares and of delivery of possession of 15 out of such 20 shares to the plaintiffs. He also granted other reliefs which are not material for the purpose of this appeal and which are not now in dispute.2. The appeal is by defendants 3 and 4 and is confined to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., by Its Managing Agents, S.S.N. Lakshma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad202
Raghava Rao, J.1. An interesting question of company law is raised for determination by this appeal. The material facts which are more or less beyond the pale of controversy -- may be briefly stated.2. The plaintiff, a shareholder of the defendant, which is a limited company, fell into arrears in respect of the third and fourth instalments of Rs. 1250 each of the total share amount of Rs. 5000 payable by him on his 50 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each, having duly paid the amounts of the first and second instalments of Rs. 1250 each, payable along with the application for shares and at the time of the allotment thereof respectively. There was a meeting of the Directors of the company held on 3lst October 1928 as shown by the entries, Exs. D-4 and D 6, in the minutes book at which, firstly, it was resolved that the first call (i. e., the call in respect of the third instalment) made as proposed in the circular letters, Ex. D-2 series, should be confirmed and, secondly, the Managi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »