Chennai Court October 1950 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.
Periaswami Kaliyarayar Vs. Periaswami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad718; (1951)IMLJ165
ORDER1. This is a petn. by the pltf. to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dismissing his suit, S. C. S. No. 278 of 1948.2. The suit was for arrears of rent. Govindammal, the owner of the properties, leased them to Periaswami Padayachi, the deft. for a term of 3 years commencing from 7-7-1945. On 30-10-1946, Govindammal granted a second lease of the properties in favour of one Koorathalwar for 10 years. It will be noticed that the currency of the second lease partiallyoverlaps the currency of the first lease. It appears that on 8-11-1946 Koorathalwar issued a notice to Periaswami Padayachi informing him of the lease in his favour. On 7-1-1947, when both these leases had yet sometime to run, Govindammal granted a usufructuary mtge. of the properties in favour of the pltf. Thereafter, on 28-1-1947 Govindammal sent a notice to Periaswami Padayachi, the original lessee, informing him of the usufructuary mtge. that she had created. On 31-1-1947 the pltf. too sent a simil...
In Re: Attappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad759; (1951)IMLJ13
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. There is no evidence that the petnr. offered physical obstruction. It is doubtful whether, without physical obstruction, by mere words, a person can be said to commit an offence under Section 341, I. P. C. Even if it is considered an offence, still Section 95, I. P. C. will apply. The conviction & sentence are set aside. The petnrs. are acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refunded....
S.T.M. Vyravan Chettiar Vs. R.M. Rayalu Ayyar Nagaswami Ayyar and Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad844; (1951)IMLJ298
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Ct. of the subordinate Judge of Madura in E. P. No. 76 of 1946. The facts relevant for appreciating the questions raised may be briefly narrated. Thothan Chetti is the lather of Vairavan Chetti. Shanmugham Chetti is the son of Viravan Chetti. Viravan Chetti executed a mtge. in favour of the pltf. in September 1921 for himself & as guardian of his son, deft. 2, for a sum of Rs. 50,000. The mtgee. instituted O. S. No. 114 of 1925 against Vairavan Chetti & his son & obtained a preliminary mtge. decree against the share of Vairavan Chetti on 16-1-1930. Final decree was passed on 30-9-1930. The suit against his son, deft. 2 was dismissed. There were appeal & cross-appeal to the H. C. against that decree being A. S. Nos. 406 & 467 of 1930. On 14-8-1934 the H. C. confirmed the mtge. decree against deft. 1 & passed a simple money decree against deft. 2 to the extent of his share in the family properties. Meanwhile, in execution of the ...
Thangavelu and 10 ors. Vs. the Buckhingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1950
Reported in: (1950)0LLJ1219Mad
ORDER1. In exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of Madras referred the disputes between Messrs. the Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) and their employees to the Second Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for adjudication. The disputes related to wages, dearness allowance, reinstatement and other conditions of service. The enquiry before the tribunal had practically come to a close by the middle of May 1950. On 4th July 1950 a petition was filed by the company under Section 33 of the Act seeking permission to discharge ten of their workmen on the ground that they were surplus to requirements and therefore had to be retrenched. The ten workmen were made respondents to this petition and notices were served on them to appear before the tribunal to make their representations in the matter. On 10th July 1950' the president of the Madras Labour Union appeared before the tribunal ...
S.A. Seshadri Ayyangar Vs. A. Narayana Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad640; (1950)2MLJ396
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. The landlord of anon-residential building in the Madras City is the appellant and the tenant is the respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal. The Madras Non-residential Buildings Control Order, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Order, expired on 30-9-1946 and the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XV [15] of 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, came into force on 1-10-1946. The landlord obtained an order from the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant under Section 8 of the Order on 29-5-1946 and this order was confirmed by the Collector on appeal on 15-7-1946. On 2-8-1946 the landlord applied to the City Civil Court for execution of the order for eviction in accordance with Section 8 (3) of the Order which provided that such order 'shall be executed .... by the Principal Judge by the Madras Civil Court .... as if it were a decree passed by him.' On the same day, the tenant preferred a revision petition to the Provincial Government agains...
The Bombay Life Assurance Society Ltd. by Its Agents, S.A. Ramaswamy a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad725; (1951)IMLJ220
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the Ct of Small Causes, Madras, under Rule 17, Sen. IV, Madras City Municipal Act IV (4) of 1919 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The questions of law referred for the decision of this Ct are the following :'1. Whether by reason of the issue of two notices, Exs. A. 1 & A. 2, simultaneously with Ex. A. 3, the last mentioned notice is invalid & as a consequence, the levy of tax on escaped assessment under Section 137 B, City Municipal Act is also invalid? 2. Whether Section 137B, City Municipal Act applies to a case of escape of tax on property? 3. Whether the operation of Section 137 B is confined to cases of complete escape of assessment or extends also to cases where there has already been an assessment, but at a lesser amount than what is proper?' The Bombay Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd, which was the applt before the Ct below is the owner of premises No 378 China Bazar Road, Madras. An amount of Rs. 856-2-0 was demanded fro...
In Re: P.S. Subbarama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad755; (1950)2MLJ775
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This is a revision petn. against the conviction of the petnrs. under Section 15(a), General Sales-tax Act. 1a. The petnrs. are dealers in salt which is exempted from sales tax. The salt was soldpacked in gunnies. Though the turnover of the business was over Rs. 10,000 the petnrs. did not submit a return as salt was exempted from tax & as they bona fide believed that they were not dealing in gunnies. The petnrs. no doubt charged the purchasers for gunnies also. The present prosecution is for failure to submit the return. 2. The petnrs. paid the tax and filed a suit for the refund of the same on the ground that they were not liable to pay the tax on gunnies. The lower Ct. dismissed the suit & an appeal was filed & it was dismissed by this Ct. vide Varasuki & Co. v. The Province of Madras, : AIR1951Mad254 . It appears from the judgment of the H. 0. that the Govt. have, subsequent to this prosecution, exempted gunnies in which salt was packed, from payment of sales...
In Re: S. Venkatakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad469; (1950)2MLJ763
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Sections 78 and 112, Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Section 116 and the lower Court in effect finds that the offence under Section 116 has been made out but did not convict him very rightly for that offence as the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 131 has not been complied with.2. The lower Court, however, convicted the petitioner for an offence under Sections 78 and 112, as this was a minor offence to one under Section 116 and as from the evidence the minor offence could be said to have been made out.3. The provision of law under which an accused charged with a major offence, can be convicted for a minor offence is Section 238, Criminal P. C. Mr. Govind Swaminadhan, the State Prosecutor, very rightly drew my attention to the wording of the Section 238. According to the section, when a person charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combinatio...
In Re: S. Mohan Kumaramangalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad583; (1951)IMLJ174
ORDER1. The petitioner herein who is & graduate of the University of Cambridge and a Barrister-at-law, applies to this Court under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce him before this Court :and set him at liberty forthwith.2. According to the affidavit filed in support of the application it is stated that while he was residing permanently in 'Baibhuvan',Sandhurst Road, Bombay, he was arrested on 24-6-1950 by the Bombay Police at Kishori Court, Worli Sea Pace, Bombay, where he and his wife had been invited to stay for a day. No warrant was shown to him at the time of his arrest. He was taken to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, where a detention order of the same date was served on him. On 27-6-1950 one Mr. H. S. Bhat, an advocate of the Bombay High Court, wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, stating that he had been instructed by the wife of the ...
In Re: Sivasubbu Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad772; (1951)IMLJ207
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. Accused l & 2 have preferred these appeals against their conviction & sentence by the learned Ses. J. of Tirunelveli for the offences falling under Sections 324 & 302, I. P. C. The first accused has been convicted & sentenced to three years R. I. under Section 324 & the second accused under Section 302 to death .2. The prosecution case is that those two accused stabbed the deceased Sudalaimani Nadar on 4-11-1949 when he was in the hotel of P.W. 1 & also when he wont out near the hotel of P. W. 3 & finally at the end of the street where the fatal blow seems to have been dealt by the second accused as a result of which the deceased fell down & died. (After discussing evidence their Lordships observed as follows :) We feel that the guilt of murder has not been brought home to the second accused. But what has been proved beyond reasonable doubt appears to be that he was responsible for stabbing the deceased in the hotel as spoken to by P. W. 1 & for causing the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »