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.
In Re: T. Venkateswara Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad611; (1951)IMLJ11
Govinda Menon, J.1. These are applications by the various petitioners therein for restoring applications which had been disposed of on the merits by this Court. The reasons alleged are that at the time the applications were heard the petitioners were not present in Court.2. There is no provision of law which enables the Court to rehear an application for a writ of habeas corpus which has been disposed of on merits by the Court after examining the materials placed before it, even though the party or counsel was not present at the time the petition was heard. Once the application had been looked into and disposed of on the merits there is no provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law for the time being in force which empowers the High Court to rehear such an application. An application for a writ of habeas corpus is of a criminal nature and no review is allowed in such matters. We are, therefore, of the opinion that these applications are not maintainable and are th...
Tej Singh Vs. Soora Subbarayulu Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad663; (1951)IMLJ183
Rajamannar, C.J.1. In our opinion this application must be allowed and order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Ct of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the order of the Rent Controller, fixing the fair rent of the premises in question must be quashed on the ground that it is vitiated by an error of law apparent on its face. The learned Judge who decided theappeal has assumed that the payment of taxes and the amounts spent or to be spent for re-pairs cannot properly go into the Consideration of the question of fixation of fair rent under the Act. This is clearly erroneous under Section 4(2) of the Act in fixing the fair rent regard must be had also to the circumstances of the case including any amount paid by the tenant by way of premium or any other like sum in addition to rent after 1-4-1946. It is not necessary to pronounce finally on the question whether the taxes payable by the tenant under a special contract and the amount spent or to be spent for repairs fall within the phrase 'any am...
Gure Venkunaidu Vs. Boddu Appanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad704; (1951)IMLJ167
Panchapagesa Sastry, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellantto recover certain jewels presented to his daughter-in-law at the time of her marriage with his son. It would appear that the son lived for sometime with his wife and thereafter disappeared. It is now more than seven years since he disappeared and nobody has heard from him. The second defendant, the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, married another person in the year 1941. This suit was filed in December 1945 for recovery of the jewels or their value. The question to be decided by me now is one of limitation. The trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decree of the trial Court. He was of opinion that the true cause of action is the remarriage of the second defendant and limitation commenced to run from the date of such remarriage. As it was more than three years, thereafter that the suit was brought, he dismissed th...
T.K. Shanmugasundara Mudaliar Vs. S.C. Sivalinga Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad675; (1951)IMLJ292
Raghava Rao, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 2-3-1948 for Rs. 2750 payable with interest at 9 per cent, per annum. The answer of the defendants was that although they had executed the promissory note it was unenforceable on account of an agreement in bar of the suit, which they detailed as follows in their written statement: (2) 'The plaintiff along with Rudrakoti Mudaliar, Kuppuswami Mudaliar and Arumuga Mudaliar are carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of Ganapathi Palaighat Company. They owned a casuarina tope planted on land belonging to the local temple. The first defendant is carrying on business in firewood in Madras and the second defendant is only working under him. In or about February 1948, the plaintiff and his partners agreed to sell the tope to the first defendant for Rs. 7750 with an advance of Rs. 500. At this time there was cons...
Mathradas Vadilal Gandhi Vs. Sri Kishen Jhavar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad822; (1951)IMLJ59
Raghava Rao, J. 1. This civil misc. appeal arises out Of E. A. No. 1929 Of 1949 in E. P. No. 2779 of 1949 on the file of the Cty Civil Ct. of Madras. That Ct. ordered the E. A., & the resp. therein appeals. The E. P. & E. A. were in connection with an order for eviction passed in favour of the appct in the Ct. below, that is, of the resp. before me, in a proceeding for eviction under Section 7, Madras Rent Control Act XV (15) of 1946. Under Section 9 of the Act, so far as material to the present case, every order made under Section 7 shall be executed in the City of Madras by the principal Judge of the Madras City Civil Ct. as if it were a decree passed by him.2. Mr. Ramaswami Aiyangar has taken two points before me against the order of the Ct. below. The first is that an execution appln. by a person seeking to come on record as a legal representative is not maintainable in law as a substantive appln. by itself, without the prayers of a regular execution petn. He relies on a judgment o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›