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.
Mundlapudi Durgaprasadarao and ors. Vs. C. Sundar Bhutt and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad607; (1951)IMLJ290
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. No complaint for an offence under Section 183, Indian penal Code can be filed by a Court, as Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code app is only to case falling within Section 195 (1) Clauses (b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This excludes case falling under Section 195 (1) Clause (a) and Section 195 (1) (a). The trial Court there-fore cannot file this complaint as Court.2. The complaint is therefore directed to be with-drawn. It is open to the Amin or the Principal Subordinate Judge as public servant to whom the Amin is subordinate to file the complaint. ...
In Re: K.T.K. Thangamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad610; (1951)IMLJ101
Govioda Menon, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the learned District-Magistrate of North Arcot passed in Cri. M. P. No. 52 of 1950 in C. C. No. 32 of 1950 holdingthat the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint against him and proceed with the enquiry and trial.2. The petitioner is a detenu in the Central Jail at Vellore, having been confined there under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act of 1947. The complaint against him is that in violation of Clauses 6 and 9 of Rule 15, Madras Security Prisoners' Rules, 1947, he continued to be on hunger strike from 1-11-1949 to 26-11-1949 and thereby committed an offence under Rule17 (2) of the said Rules. Rule 17 (2) contemplatesthat:'If any security prisoner is guilty of a jail offence, which, by reason of his having frequently committed such offences or otherwise, is in the opinion of the Superintendent not adequately punishable by him under the provisions of Sub-rule 1, he may, with the approval of t...
Manager, United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad141; (1951)ILLJ1Mad; (1951)IMLJ213
Rajamannar C.J. 1. This appln. for the issue of a Writ of Gertiorari to quash an order of the Comr. of Labour, Madras, has been filed in the following circumstances, C. G. Sarma, resp. 2 herein, was an employee of: the United Commercial Bank Ltd., at its Mathurai branch. His services were dispensed with by the bank. on 30-6-1949 on the ground that he misbehaved towards a respectable constituent of the Bank & that his conduct both inside & outside the office was extremely unsatisfactory. He preferred an appeal against this order of dismissal to the Comr. of Labour, Madras, under Section 41, Madras Shops and Establishments Act of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act). That section runs thus :'41(1). No employer shall dispense with the services of a person employed continuously for a period of not loss than six months, except for a reasonable cause and without giving such person at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice, provided, however, that such notice sha...
Sheikh Esuf Rowther Alias A.S. Mohammed Yusuf and ors. Vs. Sheikh Dava ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad658; (1951)IMLJ93
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This revn petn is filed by the defts against the order of the Dist Munsif of Mannargudi accepting the award passed by an arbitrator in O. S. No. 177 of 1947 & giving a decree in terms of it in the following circumstances. A suit was filed by the pltfs for recovery of possession of properties alleging that they acquired title to two-thirds shares in the plaint house under two sale deeds, Exs. A. 5 & A. 6 dated 5-6-1912 & a settlement deed Ex. A. 10 dated 10-1-1947 respectively. The suit was contested by the defts on the grounds covered by the various issues raised in the suit. 2. While the trial of the suit was proceeding, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the arbitration of one Mohamed Abu Bucker, & a memorandum of agreement was filed into Ct setting out the terms of the reference to arbitration. The arbitrator filed his award on 19-11-1948. The learned Dist Munsif without giving any time to the parties concerned passed a decree observing that it was concede...
Muthuveeranna Chettiar Vs. Muthuvenkatarama Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad711; (1951)IMLJ196
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This civil misc. second appeal is against the order of the Dist. J., Tiruchirapalli, dated 13-2 1946, in A. S. No. 321 of 1943 filed against the order of the Dist. Munsif of Tiruchirapalli, dated 8-7-1943, in E. P. no. 505 of 1943 in O. S. No. 251 of 1932. The facts are briefly these :2. One Kanakavallithayarammal sued her step son, Muthuvenkatarama Chettiar, & his minor son, Bhaskara Chettiar, for maintenance in O. S. no. 251 of 1932, District Munsif's Ct., Tiruchirapalli. The suit was decreed on 29-11-1932. Both the defts. were directed by the decree tp pay, on or before 29-3-1933, the maintenance accrued due to the pltf. at Rs. 14 per month from 1-7-1931 till the date of the decree, A future maintenance to the pltf. at Rs. 14 p.m. from the date of the decree during the life of the pltf., at the end of each year, & pltf.'s costs Rs. 85-2-6. The decree-holder, Kanakavallithayarammal, filed E. P. No. 272 of 1934 praying for the recovery of maintenance which bad...
W.N. Srinivasa Bhat and anr. Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad70; (1951)IMLJ115
Govinda Menon, J. 1. At the very outset of his arguments the learned Advocate-General raised the objection that this Court has no power to issue a writ of certiorari claimed by the petitioners, and he rested his argument on an interpretation of Articles 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Ryots of Garbandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimidi which lays down that the High Court at Madras has no power to issue a writ of certiorari on an officer or official body beyond the limits of the Presidency town of Madras except in a limited manner as regards British subjects and that the Madras Supreme Court Charter (1800), Clause 8 did not confer such a power has been relied upon by the learned Advocate General. This decision must be deemed to have overruled the earlier decisions of this Court such as In re Nataraja Iyer, 36 Mad. 72 : (16 I. 0. 755) and the cases which followed the same, to the effect that the High Court has jurisdiction ...
Srirangam Municipality Represented by Its Executive Authority the Comr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad807; (1951)IMLJ281
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appeal againstthe order made by our learned brother, Satyanarayana Rao on 25-5-1948 as one of the vacation Judges during the summer recess of that year in the following circumstances. 2. The Srirangam Municipality which is the applt. before us, issued a notice to the resp. purporting to be under Section 182, Madras District Municipalities Act directing him to deliver possession of an extent of 30 cents of land in T. S. No. 1513on the northern & eastern side of T. S. No. 1509 & to remove the fence he had put up thereon onthe ground that the resp. had encroached on land belonging to the Municipality. This notice wasserved on the resp. on 25-2-1948. He thereuponfiled a suit O. S. No. 250 of 1948 in the Ct. of the Dist. Munsif of Trichinopoly against the Municipality represented by its Comr. for a declarationof his title to & for the maintenance of his possession of the land in dispute. Along with theplaint he filed an appln. for an interim injunction restrai...
A. Akkuliya Naidu Vs. Mattiba Venkataswamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad659; (1951)IMLJ189
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of Rajamannar J (as he then was) in C. M. A. No. 378 of 1948. The action out of which the appeal arises was one for damages for malicious prosecution in which the pltf claimed a sum of Rs. 500 as damages on the ground that at the instigation of his (sic) defts 2 & 3 deft 1 made a report to the Village Munsif, deft 3 which ultimately resulted in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. regarding the possession of a house. The case was eventually dismissed after enquiry. The defence to the action whichwas disposed of on two preliminary issues was (1) that a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was not a 'prosecution' in respect of which a suit for damages for malicious prosecution would lie, & (2) that in any event the suit was not maintainable as there was provision in the Code for awarding costs to the successful party & if the costs were refused it must be taken that they were refused on the ground that he d...
Sri Narayana Dossju Varu, the Mahant of Sri Hathiramjee Mutt Vs. the M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad706; (1951)IMLJ62
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal by Sri Narayanadossju Varu, the present Mahant of Sri Hathi Ramji, Tirupati, one of the most well-known mutts of South India, against the order of the learned Dist J of Chittoor, appointing a receiver for the purpose of taking possession & managing the properties as well as the assets belonging to the Mutt pending disposal of O. S. No. 1 of 1950. The pltf. was recognised as the Mahant for a concordat as it were to use the language of the learned counsel for the resp, on 15-1-1948. But pending such recognition, the Endowment Board had appointed one Mr. Bhujanga Rao to be in possession of the properties, after the death of the previous Mahant, which took place on 5-10-1947. Where once the applt was recognised & installed as the Mahant, the interim trustee appointed by the Board handed over possession of the properties to the Mahant along with cash to the tune of more than Rs. 1,70,000 & the jewels belonging to the Mutt. It is not necessary for us to ...
B. Rehanna Basanna and ors. Vs. B. Adeppa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad732; (1951)IMLJ289
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. This is a petn to revise the order of the Dist J, Bellary calling upon the petnrs to pay additional courts-fee. 2. The suit was for partition. The pltfs are the sons of deft 1. Deft 2 is an alienee of some of the joint family properties from deft 1 under a sale deed dated 10-7-1943. In respect of this alienation it is alleged in the plaint that the alienee, viz., deft 2 is not in possession of the properties alienated to him & that they continue to be in the possession & enjoyment of the family. It is also alleged that the sale 'is not true, genuine, valid or binding on the pltfs share of the properties', that there was no legal necessity for the sale, that the family derived no benefit by the sale, that the transaction 'is void, inoperative & invalid' so far as the pltfs are concerned, & that the document of sale is 'sham, fictitious & collusive & cannot bind the share of the pltfs'. The pltfs did not pay any separate court-fee in respect of this alienati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »