Chennai Court September 1949 Judgments
In Re: Pesala Subrahmanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad308a
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted for having sold on 10th March 1948 a bag of salt at Rs. 5-4-0 when the controlled rate was Rs. 3-4-7 a bag. The rate of salt was fixed by means of a notification issued by the Collector of the district in the District Gazette. The notification is issued under Section 3 (2) (c) of Central Act XXIV [24] of 1946. Under that section the fair price has to be fixed by notified order. Notifled order has been defined in the Act as an order notified in the Official Gazette. Official Gazette has not been defined in the Act. But under the General Clauses Act it means the Gazette of India or as the case may be the gazette of a province. In this province the Official Gazette is Fort Saint George Gazette. It is conceded by the Public Prosecutor that there is no notification in the Fort Saint George Gazette corresponding to the notification in the Nellore Gazette. The relevant notification of the Collector in the Nellore Gazette, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.K.N. Mallick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad307
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. There is no political agent now in Mysore. Therefore Section 9, Extradition Act, applies as it is stated that the requisition of the State is under Section 9 of the Act, which attracts the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The Magistrate must therefore follow the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. It is conceded it has not been followed in this case. I therefore quash the proceedings in the case and direct the Magistrate to follow the provisions of Section 3 of the Act....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gannon Dunkerly and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad837
Somasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a firm of building contractors and they have been convicted under Sections 42 and 123, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.2. The case for the prosecution is that in respect of M. S. C. 109 which is a lorry owned by them they carried goods, to wit furniture, contrary to the conditions of the permit. The company has been given permits for a number of lorries of which M. S. C. 109 is one. According to the prosecution, the only goods permitted to be carried in the lorry are building materials which is mentioned as against the column 'nature of goods to be carried' which is item 8 in the permit given to them. There are about nine items in the permit starting with the name of the holder, father's name, address, area etc, type and capacity of vehicles, permitted laden weight, nature of goods, date of expiry and lastly conditions. As against this column 'conditions' it is stated that M. S. Clause 109 is permitted to carr...
Tag this Judgment!Rekapalli Radhakrishnayya Alias Frank R. Anderson and anr. Vs. Bhamidi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1949
Reported in: (1950)2MLJ239
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kakinada decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a one-third share of the plaint B and C schedule properties with mesne profits and costs of the suit and passing a preliminary decree to that effect.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition by metes and bounds for recovery of her one-third share of the properties set out in B and C schedules appended to the plaint, and, for separate possession of such share. The plaintiff also prayed for mesne profits, past and future, in respect of the schedule mentioned properties. The plaintiff's case was that her maternal grandfather one Paddibhotla Venkata-krishnia executed a deed of settlement dated 5th May, 1903, marked Ex. P-2 in the case, creating an absolute estate in favour of the plaintiff's mother and also two of her maternal aunts to the extent, of one-third share ea...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanabibi Vs. Jayarabi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad761
Raghava Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises the question whether there was delivery of possession as required by the Muhammadan law under or pursuant to EX. D.-8, a deed of settlement in favour of the defendant by her deceased husband, dated 4th April 1944. The plaintiff though originally a Hindu became a Muslim by conversion and afterwards also a wife of the executant of Ex. D.-8. Both the parties to the present suit ace Muhammadans, even as the executant of EX. D.-8 was. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below on the ground that Ex. D.-8 is of no avail to the defendant for want of delivery of possession.2. The property was in the hands of tenants at the time of Ex. D-8, Under it, firstly the settlor reserves to himself the right to receive rents during his lifetime, and secondly he also undertakes to pay municipal taxes. It is contended by Mr. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, that notwithstanding these two undisputed facts there was sufficient delivery of posse...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad AmIn Sahib (Died) Vs. Tiruvannamalai Co-operative Society by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad234
Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this second appeal Mr. Arunachalam raised a very interesting point of law on which the only reported case is that of Karuppasami v. Krishnaswami : (1949)1MLJ199 , a decision of Satyanarayana Rao J.2. There was a mortgage decree passed by the District Munsif of Tiruvannamalai in favour of the Co-operative Society. The Society, instead of proceeding with the execution of the decree in the District Munsifs Court, applied to the Registrar to recover the money payable under that decree under Section 57A, Madras Co-operative Societies Act, VI [6] of 1932. Under that section, the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the local Government, recover the amount due under a decree or order of a civil Court by the attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of property of the person against whom such decree or order has been obtained or passed. Under Section 57B, the Reg...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamad Abdul Sukkoor Vs. Vallabhadas Kanji Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad219
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This petition is by the plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in I. A. No. 169 of 1948 in O. S. N. 80 of 1946 on his file.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the respondents for damages for malicious and wrongful institution of insolvency proceedings against him by the defendants. I. P. no. 20 of 1942 was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and the same was dismissed on the ground that no debt was payable by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants thereupon filed two suits O.S. Nos. 132 and 133 of 1945 against the plaintiff for the recovery of the sum due under the contract. The two suits were dismissed on the ground that the contracts were of a wageriag character. The defendants have filed appeals against the decision in the two suits and they are A. S. Nos. 164 and 188 of 1948 pending in this Court. This suit, as already stated, is for recovery of damages for instituting the insolvency proceedings. One of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankati Pedda Chenniah Vs. Mahaboob Bee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad236
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant who took on lease some land from the plaintiff for 1942-43. The plaintiff sued him to recover Rs. 190 as damages for use and occupation for the years 1943-44 and 1944-45 on the ground that the defendant continued in occupation and cultivation. The learned District Munsif found that defendant did not cultivate subsequent to the expiry of his lease and dismissed the suit with costs. The learned District Judge found that the land was not actually cultivated by anybody in 1944-45. He considered some evidence as regards cultivation in 1943-44 but gave no finding at all as to who actually cultivated it during this year. He decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour on the ground that the defendant failed to surrender possession after the expiry of his lease.2. I am quite unable to follow what kind of surrender of possession the learned District Judge contemplated. These are open fields on which there was no homestead or any movable property to be s...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad AmIn Sahib (Died) Vs. Tiruvannamalai Co-operative Society by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ682
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. S.A. No. 1345 of 1945. In this second appeal Mr. Arunachalam raised a very interesting point of law on which the only reported case is that of Karuppasami v. Krishnasami : (1949)1MLJ199 , a decision of Satyanarayana Rao, J.2. There was a mortgage decree passed by the District Munsif of Tiruvannamalai in favour of the Co-operative Society. The Society, instead of proceeding with the execution of the decree in the District Munsif's Court, applied to the Registrar to recover the money payable under that decree under Section 57-A of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, VI of 1932. Under that section, the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the local Government, recover the amount due under a decree or order of a Civil Court by the attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of property of the person against whom such decree or order has been obtained or pa...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamed Abdul Sukkoor Vs. Vallabhadas Kanji Firm and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ645
Somasundaram, J.1. This petition is by the plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in I.A. No. 159 of 1948, in O.S. No. 80 of 1946 of his file.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the respondents for damages for malicious and wrongful institution of insolvency proceedings against him by the defendants. I. P. No. 20 of 1942 was filed by the defendants against the plaintiff and the same was dismissed on the ground that no debt was payable by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants thereupon filed two suits, O.S. Nos. 132 and 133 of 1945 against the plaintiff for the recovery of the sums due under the contract. The two suits were dismissed on the ground that the contracts were of a wagering character. The defendants have filed appeals against the decision in the two suits and they are A.S. Nos. 164 and 188 of 1948 pending in this Court. This suit, as already stated, is for recovery of damages for instituting the insolvency proceedings. One of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »