Chennai Court July 1949 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Bavaji Alias Abdul Muhammad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad44
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner who was accused 1 in c. c. No. 146 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam was convicted for the contravention of an order promulgated by the Provincial Government No. 2660, A/45 (C. S.) published at pp. 681 and 582 to Part II of Fort St. George Gazette dated 4th September 1945 which had been continued as an offence by Section 7(1) of central Act XXXIV [24] of 1946 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the Court of Session, West Tanjore and the present revision is to set aside the aforesaid confirmation of the conviction and sentence.2. P. W. 1 was the Grain Purchase Tahsildar of Tanjore in October 1947 and P. W. .2 was the Inspector of Police, C. I. D. X Branch, Tanjore at the same time. On 3rd October 1947 at about 10-30 P.M. both P. Ws. 1 and 2 proceeded along the flood bank shown in the plan EX, D-5 and found four cart-l...
Arunachala Reddiar Vs. Muthusadasiva Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad261
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal was referred to a Bench as Govinda Menon J. was of opinion that as it raised a question of importance it should be considered by a Bench, particularly in view of the conflict between two decisions, one of a Bench and the other of a single Judge, on the question raised in the appeal. The Bench decision is Venkatarama Sastri v. Venkatanarasimham : AIR1938Mad144 and the decision of the single Judge is Kamalammal v. Rajaratna Naicker : (1949)1MLJ66 .2. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be shortly stated. The respondents obtained a final decree in a mortgage suit on 11th February 1941. The first execution petition was filed on 5th February 1944 for the sale of the properties. That application was returned from time to time for the filing of the sale papers and the encumbrance certificates, and while the decree-holder was praying for extension of time to comply with those requirements, the executing Court required the decree-holder to produced ...
Arunachala Reddiar Vs. Muthusadasiva Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ617
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal was referred to a Bench as Govinda Menon, J., was of opinion that as it raised a question of importance it should be considered by a Bench, particularly in view of the conflict between two decisions, one of a Bench and the other of a Single Judge, on the question raised in the appeal. The Bench decision is Venkatarama Sastri v. Vmkatanarasimhan : AIR1938Mad144 and the decision of the single Judge is Kamalammal v. Rajarathna Naicker : (1949)1MLJ66 ..2. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be shortly stated. The respondents obtained a final decree in a mortgage suit on nth February, 1941. The first execution petition was filed on 5th February, 1944, for the sale of the properties. That application was returned from time to time for the filing of the sale papers and the encumbrance certificates, and while the decree-holder was praying for extension of time to comply with those requirements, the executing Court required the decree-holder to prod...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›