Chennai Court August 1949 Judgments
Kakumanu Pattabhiramayya Vs. Mekala Mallareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ747
Horwill, J.1. The appellant instituted a suit in a Village Munsiff's Court which had no jurisdiction; and a decree was passed. In execution, he sought to proceed against the property of the defendant. Various objections raised by the defendant to the execution of the decree were overruled and execution ordered to proceed. In appeal to the Court of Subordinate Judge, a question was taken as to the jurisdiction of the Village Court; and it was held that since the suit was instituted in a Court having no territorial jurisdiction, the decree was a nullity and could not therefore be executed. The appeal was therefore allowed and the execution petition dismissed.2. In revision, various contentions have been raised. The only argument pf sub-stance is that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding that the decree was a nullity. The learned Subordinate Judge overlooked the provisions of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, which says:No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowe...
Tag this Judgment!The Kandan Textile Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal I and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ789
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application is made by the Kandan Textiles limited, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in the matter of the industrial dispute between the workers and the management of the Kandan Textiles, limited, before the Industrial Tribunal I, Madras and the award therein, dated 23rd May, 1949 and to quash the same.2. The applicant company is the proprietor of a small weaving mill located in 'iruvottiyur, Madras, employing (60 looms and about 200 workers. On 21st January, 1948, one R.M. Sundaram one of the workmen in the mill was dismissed by the management on the ground that he was responsible for the loss of a flexible shaft. He made attempts through the Labour Conciliation Officer to get himself re-instated but did not succeed in his attempt. On 23rd August, 1948, the boiler in the mills broke down and the mills were closed from 24th August, 1948, till nth October, 1948. On the intervention of the Labour Authorities, 14 days wages we...
Tag this Judgment!Sripada Sambasiva Rao Vs. Kaki Venkatasuryanarayanamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad135
Mack, J.1. A rather novel point has been raised in this revision petition by the defendant who was sued for the recovery of Rs. 61-11.4. He admittedly signed an acknowledgment in an account book of the plaintiffs on 1st April 1945 showing that Rs. 54-3.6 was due on previous dealings. The point raised is a technical one, that this acknowledgment requires a one anna stamp under Schedule 1, Article 1, Stamp Act and that therefore it is inadmissible in evidence as an acknowledgment of liability which has the effect of saving limitation.2. The learned District Munsif has referred to some authorities and in my view rightly held that this signature was not an acknowledgment requiring any stamp. This was the opinion expressed in Nagappa Chetty v. V. A. A. R. Firm, : AIR1925Mad1215 by Krishnan J. though the point for determination did not directly fall for determination there.3. To bring the signature within the definition of an acknowledgment in the schedule, it is necessary that it should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Anumolu Tirupatirayolu (Died) and ors. Vs. Kaluri Venkata Subba Rao an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad287
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 120 of 1931 against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Guntur scaling down the decree debt in a manner which the appellant considers to be unduly favourable to the judgment-debtor. 2. The point in dispute between the parties is a simple one. A promissory note was executed in renewal of two earlier promissory notes, Exs. P-1 and P -2, in which a further sum of Rs. 6000/- was advanced, making a total of Rs. 15000/- due by defendants l and 2 and one P. Prakasa Rao. On 12th March 1931 an arrangement was entered into between the creditor and the debtors whereby Prakasa Rao undertook half the liability under the note, which amount-ed to Rs. 9700/-, and for that amount he executed a mortgage bond in favour of the creditor. The defendants executed the suit promissory note for the Other Rs. 9700/-. The question arising in this appeal is whether we must regard the splitting up of the old debt on 12th Match 1931 as a c...
Tag this Judgment!Gamoji Venkata Ramakrishnarao Vs. Gullapalli Sambamurti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad581
Horwill, J.1. The appellant filed a petition in the Court of the District Judge of East Godavari, the order on which is under appeal to scale down his debt under Section 19 of Madras Act IV [4] of 1938. Evidence was adduced; and after hearing arguments, the learned Judge framed three points as arising for determination on the allegations in the petition and counter and onthe evidence and arguments. They were: (i) Whether the petitioner is barred by principles of res judicata from preferring the petition (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Act IV [4] of 1938 and (3) What is the amount which will be due if the decree is scaled down? On the first point the learned District Judge decided in favour of the appellant. On the second point he held that the appellant was not possessed of any saleable interest in the property on the relevant dates, 1-10-1937 and 22-3-1938, and that he was, therefore, not entitled to the benefits of Act IV [4] of 1938. Because of this finding...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Malik Vs. V.S. Thiruvengadaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad208
Horwill, J.1. In misfeasance proceedings taken by the liquidator during the course of a winding up of a company of which the appellant was a Director for a year or so, this Court on the Original Side directed that the appellant do pay the Official Liquidator the sum of Rs. 2991-14-0 and Rs. 4866-6-0 'being the amounts of loss occasioned in respect of the share brokerage, preliminary expenses and investments in unauthorised banks respectively.' The respondent having taken an assignment of the decree proceeded against the appellant in execution and applied to the Court, for his arrest. The question arose whether under Section 51, Civil P. C., the respondent was liable for arrest. He pleaded that he was a pauper and was quite unable to raise the money to discharge the decree. The Court, however, found that since he was a director and it was on account of his breach of duty that the loss had been sustained by the company, Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 51 applied, and 'that the decre...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muhammad Eusoof Maricar Vs. K. Subramanian Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad272
ORDERMack, J.1. A simple point of jurisdiction is raised in this petition by defendant 1, a permanent resident of Karaikal, who was sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli by the plaintiff in the following circumstances. The plaintiff alleged that he and defendant 1 entered into an agreement at Karaikal on 7th August 1947 by which the latter agreed to sell a building he owned in Manapparai in the Tiruchirapalli district to the plaintiff for Rs. 13,250, that he paid defendant 1 an advance of Rs. 2000 and that it was agreed that defendant 1 should come to Manapparai and complete the conveyance and get it registered in the local Registrar's office. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract and also for recovery of possession. The plea of jurisdiction taken on behalf of defendant 1 was that as a nonresident foreigner resident in the French territory of Karaikal he could not be sued in the Tiruchirapalli Court. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the T...
Tag this Judgment!Naranamangalath Manakkal Parameswaran Nambudiripad Vs. Kuttah Narayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad221
Mack, J.1. This petition raises a question of the scope of Section 6 of Madras Act, V of 1947, which authorised, entry into Hindu temples and the offer of worship therein by certain classes of Hindus who by custom or usage were previously excluded from such entry and worship. Section 3 of the Act declared the rights of excluded classes to enter into a Hindu temple and offer worship therein and also the right to bathe in any sacred tank situated within or outside the precincts of the temple. The petitioner is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondents who have made no appearance on this petition. They are two Thias, one Numbudiri Brahmin and two Nayars, who joined in a suit to enforce the right of entry into the temple and to bathe in a tank attached to it impleading the petitioner as the defendant. The petitioner pleaded that the temple was a private one belonging to his family and also inter alia that under Section 6, the Court was bound to refer for the determination of the Pro...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ganapathia Pillai Vs. N. Somasundaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad213
Mack, J.1. Petitioner is a defendant who seeks to revise an order by the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram declining to decide first an issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner, as a preliminary issue, and directing the suit for reasons he gave to be disposed of once and for all on all issues. The issue of jurisdiction appears to be one of mixed law and fact, namely, whether the suit filed under Section 92, Civil P. C. with the consent of the Advocate General does not also come within the scope of Section 73, Hindu Religious Endowments Act requiring sanction of the Hindu Religious Endowment Board, There are said to be both secular and religious trusts mingled in a general trust being administered by the defendant who has been acting as a trustee of a long-standing family trust. Under Order 14, Rule 2, Civil P. C., a Court has ample discretion to try an issue of law if it is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on issues of law only and for that pur...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. Ponnu Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad269
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. In this revision petition the main point that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Judge who decreed the suit against the defendant had committed an error of law in not having adverted himself to the available records on file in the suit, viz. the vakalat and the plaint, when coming to the conclusion as to whether Ex. D. 1 in the suit did or did not contain the thumb impression of the plaintiff. 2. The suit was for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 200 being the balance refundable from out of a sum of Rs. 300 entrusted to the defendant by the plaintiff. The defendant denied having had any transaction with the plaintiff and denied liability to refund any amount to the plaintiff. The decision in the case rested mainly upon the oral evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant. The lower Court believed the version of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for the sum of Rs. 112-13-0. While believing the version of the plaintiff, the trial Court did not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »