Chennai Court November 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.
Gadampetti Subbiah Setti Vs. Chaluvadi Ramayya Setti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1950
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ338
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 117 of 1946 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, have filed this petition to revise an order of the Subordinate fudge refusing them permission to amend the plaint. The petitioners herein who are the general body of creditors of one Chalavadai Narasimham and Kotaiah who were adjudged insolvents in I.P. No. 23 of 1933 on the file of that Court filed a suit for declaration that the suit properties belonged to the insolvents and the sale deed executed by them in favour of the first respondent herein conveying the suit house to them are not bona fide transactions having been executed with a view to defeat and delay the creditors. The circumstances culminating in the filing of the present suit may be shortly stated :2. The two insolvents executed two sale deeds in favour of the first respondent herein on 4th October, 1931 and another on 17th August, 1932, prior to their adjudication conveying their interest completely in the suit prope...
Pelisetti Venkatasubba Rao Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad208; (1951)IMLJ423
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appln. for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari' to quash the order of the local Govt. removing the petnr. from, his office of Chairman of the Municipality of Palacole. The order was passed by the Govt. on 15-3-1950 under Section 40, Madras District Municipalities Act. Under Section 40 (1) of that Act.'The Provincial Govt. may, by notfn.; remove any Chairman or vice-Chairman, who in their opinion wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys the provisions of this Act or any rules, bylaws, regulations or lawful orders issued thereunder or abuses the powers vested in him.' Under Sub-section (2) the Govt., before passing an order of removal, is bound to give the Chairman concerned an opportunity for explanation, & the notfn. issued under Sub-section (1) shall contain a statement of the reasons of the Govt. for the action taken. It is not denied that an opportunity was given to the petnr. for explanation. Prom a perusal of the order It is also clear that i...
Mudragada Subbarao and anr. Vs. Mudragada Venkatanarasimha Rao and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad736
Govinda Menon, J.1. The important point which has to be considered in this appeal is whether the compromise decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada in O. S. No. 37 of 1912 on 28-11-1918 is executable or not, because the appln out of which the present appeal arises is for execution of that decree & for reliefs which have been claimed in para 13 of the execution petn. The reliefs claimed are that resp 1 in the lower Ct be directed to hand over the account paper, etc., relating to the Veeravallipalem Choultry trust & place the petnr in possession of the properties for managing it for three years continuously & that the resps 1 to 3 be directed to file into Ct from the year Promoduta onwards the accounts till the date of petn. There were incidental reliefs also prayed for.2. Various objections were raised but they were all overruled by the learned Judge who allowed the petn as prayed for with some reliefs granted in favour of the petnr. As we are not deciding the correctness or ...
C.P. Sarathy Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad191; (1951)ILLJ148Mad; (1951)IMLJ527
Govinda Menon, J.1. The South Indian Cinema Employees Assocn. is a body regd. in September 1946 as a trade union by the Labour Comr. under the Trade Unions Act (Act XVI [16] of 1926). It contains, amongst its members a large body of employees of the various cinemas & picture houses in the city of Madras, including the Prabhat Talkies, the managing director of which is the petnr. in this Ct. Some, & not all the employees of the Prabhat Talkies, were members of this trade union in 1946. On 8-11-1946, this trade union submitted a memo, to the Labour Comr. of Madras demanding increased wages, dearness allowance, annual bonus of three months wages, increased leave facilities, provident fund & the adoption of proper procedure in imposing punishments. On this Memo, the Labour Comr, interviewed the representatives of some of the Cinema talkies & finally submitted a letter to the Govt. on 13 5-1947 to appoint an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the matters refd. to in his letter. Thereup...
Ramiah and ors. Vs. Nachiappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad764; (1951)IIMLJ30
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Under Section 145, Clause (4), Cr. P. C. theCt. has a right to attach the property in dispute & under Sub-clause (8) of Section 145, Cr. P. C. if the Mag. is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute is subject to speedy natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of such property & after the completion of the enquiry he may make such order as to the disposal of such property as he thinks fit.2. Now, in this case the learned Mag. was perfectly justified in attaching the property in dispute as he considered this case as one of emergency. But it is contended for the petnr. that the Tahsildar through whom the property was attached has no right to lease the land nor has the Ct. power to lease it out pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.3. As pointed out by Sankaran Nair J. in Srinivasa Pillai v. Sathayappa Pillai, 14 I. C. 759 : 13 Cri. L. J. 295 Mad., the Receiver or Officer a...
In Re: Boya Chinnappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad760; (1950)2MLJ766b
Somasundaram, J. 1. The applt, in this case has been convicted of the offence of rape sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 600 by the Ses. J. of Anantapur.2. The facts of the case are these : The victim of the rape is P. W. 1 aged about ten years. She was living with her mother P. W. 3 who was abandoned by her husband while P. W. 1 was a baby. P. W. 3 has been earning her livelihood by doing cooly work & sometimes by begging. They were both living in a village called Garladinne. There was also a brother of P. W. 3 living in the same village almost next to her house. Another brother of P. W. 3 lives at a place called Jambuladinne which is a hamlet of Garladinne & which is within a distance of about a mile from the latter place. The village Mag. of the place lives at Jambuladinne & the accused also lives in the same village as P. W. 3.3. According to the evidence of P. w. l, the victim, she left her village on 16-7-1949 at about 3 P. M. for Jambuladinne to fetch...
The Panchayat Board, by Its President, Sri Koneti Kutumba Rao Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad775; (1951)IMLJ285
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appln. By the Panchayat Board, Kankipadu, Vijayawada, Taluk, Krishna District, represented by its President, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Inspector of Municipal Councils & Local Boards dated 80-3-1950 purporting to supersede the Kankipadu Panchayat Board under Section 45A (1), Madras Local Boards Act for a period of one year with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Fort St. George Gazette. The order was passed by the Inspector of Local Boards in exercise of the powers delegated to him by Govt. under Section 233 of the Act. The reason for his action is contained in the pre-amble to the order which runs thus : 'Whereas in the opinion of the Inspector of Municipal Councils & Local Boards the Kannipadu Panchayat Board in the Vijayawada Taluk of KrishnaDistrict is incompetent to perform the duties imposed on it by law.' It was not disputed by learned counsel for the petnr. that the power of ...
In Re: Venugopal Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad509; (1951)IMLJ481
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This is an extraordinary application by one Venugopal Mudaliar who Is cited as P. W. 1 in the chargesheet filed by the police in C. C. No. 5 of 1950 on the file of the Additional Sub Magistrate, Vellore.2. The circumstances which have given rise to this petition are these : The petitioner complained to the police that one Thandavarayan who was employed under him & dismissed by him, entered into his house & abused & threatened to cause bodily injuries to two ladies by name Rukmanl Ammal & Saradambal Ammal who were said to be in occupation of the house at the time. The pet-titioner further alleges that he apprehended danger to his life & that of Rukmanl Ammal. The police after investigation has filed a charge-sheet against the accused in the case & as the petitioner is the informant he is cited as P. W. 1 in the charge sheet. The Assistant Public Prosecutor appears to be in charge of the prosecution. The petitioner has also engaged an advocate to assist the Assis...
N. Vaithianathan Vs. the Union of India Represented by the General Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad658a; (1951)IMLJ84
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. The petnr herein filed a petn in the Ct of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for permission to sue 'in forma pauperis' the deft, for damages in a sum of Rs. 14000, for wrongful dismissal. The suit, as originally framed, described the deft as 'The South Indian Railway, by the Governor General in Council, represented by the General Manager'. Subsequently he filed an appln to change the cause title by describing the deft as 'The Dominion of India, owning the South Indian Rly represented by its General Manager'. Subsequently on the new Constitution coming into force he filed another appln to change it into 'The Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Indian Rly.'2. This appln was opposed by the Union of India mainly on the ground that the pltf by his amendment was seeking to implead a new party in the place of a deft, who ceased to be a legal entity on 1-4-1944, after the lapse of the statutory period of limitation. This objection prevailed w...
Kollepara Puthayya and anr. Vs. Nalla Suramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad713; (1951)IMLJ168
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The first objection taken is that the Official Receiver should have been impleaded as a party & that omission to do so renders the execution proceedings incompetent. Now in a joint Hindu family consisting of a father & sons there are three categories of rights : (1) the share of the father, (2) the share of the sons, (3) the capacity of the father to sell the shares of the sons under certain circumstances. When a father is adjudicated insolvent,only rights which belong to categories l & 3 vestin the Official Receiver but not the rights in category 2. And it is open to a creditor of the familyto proceed against the rights comprised in category 2 so long as they have not been disposed ofby the Official Receiver in exercise of the right incategory 3. In the present case, therefore, thereis no bar to the shares of the sons being proceeded against. The sons cannot compel thedecree-holder to implead the Official Receiver.If the Official Receiver thinks it necessary to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »