Chennai Court December 1950 Judgments
In Re: K.V.R.S. Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad707; (1951)IMLJ184
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. These three petitions are preferred against an order passed by the Special First Class Magistrate, Madura, in C.C. NOS. 1, 2 and 3 of 1948 on his file. The order in question was passed under Section 540, Cr. P. C., calling Mr. K.R. Venkatarama Aiyar to be examined in the cases as a court witness.2. The petitioner is the second accused in the cases and the cases against him and another are for criminal breach of trust in respect of the moneys belonging to the Hindustan Bank of which the first accused was the agent and the petitioner herein, one of his constituents. A civil suit has been filed by the bank which is O. S. No. 65 of 1947 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindigul in which the petitioner and his father, the witness sought to be examined, have filed written statements. The suit also relates to the payment of moneys by the first accused to the second accused. The present prosecution is founded very much and is based upon the plaint allegations. The case of ...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.S. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Minor Jaithoon Bivi Ammal, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad831; (1951)IMLJ449
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This petn. raises an Interesting question as to whether a Muslim wife divorced by an irrevocable 'thalak', at Karur, has a right to sue for the interim maintenance amount due & return of her clothes & jewels, at Tanjore, her normal place of residence at the time when the 'thalak' was pronounced & the place at which the 'thalak' was made known to her. The lower Ct. held that part of the cause of action arose at Tanjore because the irrevocable 'thalak' was communicated to her when she was living at that place; & because the husband was bound to seek out the wife, who was resident at Tanjore & return to her jewels & clothes there as soon as he pronounced the irrevocable 'thalak' & communicated it. There is also an implied assumption In the lower Ct's order that, in any event, the wife could bring the cause of action at Tanjore, where shewas normally living, the moment her rights to the clothes & jewels on the irrevocable 'thalak' arose. Of course, as urged by Mr....
Tag this Judgment!Gnanaprakasam Fernanda Vs. M.S. Ratnasami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1950
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ425
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are three connected Civil Revision Petitions against the order of the District Munsif of Tuticorin, dated 5th August, 1950, refusing stay of execution and delivery of the suit plots to the decree-holder, Ratnasami Nadar, in E.P. No. 302 of 1950 in O.S. No. 11 of 1947 on the ground that he had no powers to do so under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code or under any other provision of law. In these three petitions, it has been urged that nearly 70 houses have been built on the suit plots, and also a church and that it will be very hard for the poor petitioners and other persons, who have built the houses, if they are suddenly bundled out of the plots after dismantling the houses and thrown into the streets and that they must at least be given some time to find suitable accommodation elsewhere especially as the Government are taking land acquisition proceedings for acquiring these very plots for the petitioners and others involved. I agree with the lowe...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Desappa Nayanim Varu and ors. Vs. Ramabhaktula Ramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad559; (1951)IIMLJ43
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chitoor dismissing the suit filed by the appellants on the ground that the presentation of the plaint was not valid.2. The suit was originally instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupathi. The plaint was signed by one G. Kanniah as the power of attorney agent of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and he also gave a vakalat in that capacity to an advocate practising in that Court. The District Munsif returned the plaint as he found that the subject-matter of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. The plaint so returned was represented in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chitoor. One Narayanaswami Naidu claiming to be the power of attorney agent of plaintiffs 1 and 2 gave a fresh vakalat to the advocate on 2-6-1945 and it was duly accepted by him. The defendants raised the contention that under the power of attorney given to Narayanaswami Naidu, no power was conferred on hi...
Tag this Judgment!Suganchand and Co. Vs. Brahmayya and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad910a; [1951]21CompCas224(Mad); (1951)2MLJ9
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are three connected appeals against the orders of Rajago-palan J. passed on the Original Side & raise an important & interesting question regarding the rights of a person who has entrusted a bank with collecting his dues & remitting them to him by demand drafts where the bank has gone into liquidation & the drafts are, therefore, left uncashed. The question is whether a person in such a case will be entitled to get his full dues as a preferential creditor or must rank only with the other creditors & be content to receive the dividends given in liquidations; in other words, whether the fiduciary relationship of principal & agent or the jural relationship of creditor & debtor will obtain, & in what circumstances each of these relationships will obtain.2. The facts are briefly these O. S. A. No. 85 of 1949 is an appeal against the order in Appln. No. 454 of 1949. There the claimants were Suganchand & Co. They made a claim against the Hanuman Bank in liquidat...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Intoor John
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1953Mad774; (1951)IIMLJ54
Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the Second Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 304A and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The appellant is a cart driver employed by the Madras Corporation for driving double bullock rubbish cart. On 21-1-1950 at about 10-30 A.M. the appellant and D. W. 1 another bullock cart driver of the Corporation were driving the carts along the Kathiavakkam High Road. They were driving at a terrific speed racing with one another one trying to overtake the other. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 who are eye-witnesses shows that the two drivers were not only driving bullock carts at terrific speed and racing with one another but the appellant let loose the reins of the bulls and was whipping the animals with a view to overtake the other bullock cart. Suddenly a cry was heard 'child, child' and then when the bullock cart was made to stop, they found a child under one of the wheels of the accused's cart....
Tag this Judgment!Burra Venkata Kamaraju and ors. Vs. Nemethunissa Begum Saheba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1950
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ524
Govinda Menon, J.1. In the final decree passed in A.S. No. 50 of 1942 by this Court Clause 2 is in the following terms: 'That the petitioners do recover from the estate of the first respondent (first defendant) the sum of Rs. 18,961-13-1 on account of mesne profits with interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum from 3rd May, 1941, till date of payment of the said amount.' Clause 6 of the decree states that each party do bear his own costs in the lower Court. In the execution proceedings of that decree, the decree-holder claimed a sum of Rs. 1,117-7-0 being the courtfee stamp payable on Rs. 18,961-13-1 as costs due to him in execution. The learned District Judge found that the decree-holder was not entitled to that amount because the decree definitely stated that the decree-holder shall be entitled only to the specific sum and that each party do bear his own costs. In such circumstances the learned District Judge disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,117-7-0 as claimed. The question is whether he...
Tag this Judgment!G. Madar Sahib Vs. the Governor-general of India in Council Having His ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad679
Panchapagesa Sastry, J. 1. This is plaintiff's appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, dismissing his suit for recovery of value of mangoes sent by him for transport from Damalacheruvu on the M & S M Railway to Victoria Terminus, Bombay, on the G. I. P. Railway and for freight charges paid by him. The goods were consigned on 5-8-1945 and he paid a very large amount of Rs. 1024-6-0 for freight charges. The baskets of mangoes contained Neelam, Rumani and Thotapuri varieties. The plaintiff claims Rs. 6450. His case is that the mangoes reached Bombay in a damaged condition owing to considerable delay on the part of the railways which he attributes to their misconduct either on the part of their administration or their servants. The suit as framed is one for value of the mangoes sent plus the freight charges and he reserved his right for damages. In substance, however, I think the case may be treated as one for damages caused to him by the whole transaction. The Govern...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Films Ltd. Vs. the Official Receiver, Madras, as Such th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad481; [1951]21CompCas138(Mad)
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. The company which is under liquidation is an unregistered company not having been registered under the Indian Companies Act & in respect of which a winding up order has been made. The company had its head office in Colombo & a branch of which was in Mathurai has now been wound up. Respondents 3 to 11 who are the directors of this company are all permanent residents of Ceylon & the applicants ask for an order that these respondents who were directors of the company may be directed to submit themselves for public examination under Section 195, Companies Act, & that they may be proceeded against for misfeasance under Section 235 of the Act. There is also a further prayer that the applicants' claim for payment of the deposit amount may be treated as preferential claim. 2. The applicants entered into an agreement on 7-9-1946 with the company & they were appointed distributors for the company's production for certain territory & a sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid as depo...
Tag this Judgment!Sathayee Vs. Angappa Kone
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad719; (1951)IMLJ91
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The order of the learned Sub-Divisional Mag. dismissing the appln. is unsustainable. According to the admitted custom of the community to which the parties belong a man, after marriage, lives in his wife's family house, & becomes a part of it. He manages the properties of his wife & mother-in-law & should consider himself as a member of that family. The resp.'s case is that on account of misunderstandings & exchange of words he went away from his wife's house to Kanappamendal & has been living there ever since. It is not his case that the petnr., or her mother had made it irksome or impossible for him, to live with his wife. Therefore the desertion is by the reap. & it is not a case of the wife driving out the husband from her roof. If the custom of the community which has been recognised as legally enforceable is to be accepted, then the resp. has to look after the wife by living in her house, & if he does not do so, he will be liable to an order ofmaintenance...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »