Chennai Court March 1950 Judgments
Dr. V. Ramakamath and ors. Vs. the Surgeon General with the Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad227; (1950)IIMLJ322
ORDER1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the papery and quash the proceedings of the Surgeon General with the Government of Madras passed in P. No. 281, Misc dated 28th November 1949 declaring the election of the petitioners and three other persons as members of the Madras Medical Council void and claiming upon the electorate to make a fresh election. The events which led up to this order which is sought to be quashed are as follows : Under section 5, Sub-section (1), Madras Medical Registration Act, a Medical Council shall be established for the Province of Madras consisting of 15 members. Of these 7 members have to be elected by the Registered Practitioners from amongst themselves. In the elections held for electing 7 such members in October 1946, the petitioners and three others were declared duly elected on 27th October 1946. Of these the first petitioner was unanimously elected as the President of the Council under Section 5 (a) of the Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Synabhog Marthandu Rao (Died) Vs. Rao Bahadur Chenna Basappa Kuruba Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad388; (1950)2MLJ653
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this second appeal arises lost before the trial Count but succeeded on appeal. The relevant facts are these:2. The plaintiff obtained a decree against defendant 3 for over Rs. 9000 in the Dharwar Sub-Court in the State of Bombay and obtained an attachment before judgment of lands belonging to defendant 3 in Harvi of the Harpanahalli taluk of the district of Bellary. The attachment was ordered on 12-11-1936 and was actually effected on 2-12-1936. Defendant 3 on 4-11-1936, sold these lands to defendant 1 by a registered sale deed, Ex. P-2, for Rs. 600. Defendant 1, in his turn, sold them to defendant 2 under Ex. D-1, a registered sale deed, for Rs. 800 on 30-7-1942. Then the plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that the sale deeds Exs. P-2 and D-1 were void, nominal, fraudulent and not binding on him. The finding of both the Courts below is that the two alienations were brought about fraudulently to defeat, in anticipation, the atta...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnuswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad777; (1950)IIMLJ200
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. In this case the two petitioners have been convicted of an offence under Section 4(2), Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, VII (7) of 1949 and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or one month simple imprisonment in default. The case against the petitioners is that the first accused married the second accused while his marriage with the complainant was subsisting. He married the complainant on 30th June 1947 and having abandoned her after illtreating her, he married the second accused on 2nd May 1949 thereby committing an offence under Section 4 (2) of Act VII (7) of 1949.2. The plea of the accused was that there was no second marriage as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses.3. In support of the prosecution case P. Ws. 2 and 3, who witnessed the marriage in the Mallikeswaran Koil, were examined. According to these two witnesses the first accused tied the tali round the neck of the second accused in...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ranganatham Pillai, L.R. of the Deceased Vaduvambal Ammal Vs. T. Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1950
Reported in: (1950)2MLJ280
Raghava Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question of law--whether the ejectment suit No. 2667 of 1946 which was laid against Vaduvam-balammal under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act lapsed with the death of Vaduvambalammal so that the suit could not be maintained as against her brother, Ranganatham Pillai as her legal representative. The argument for the second defendant, the petitioner in this case, against whom the ejectment suit was decreed by the Court below is that the cause of action contemplated by Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, where a licensee happens to be the person against whom a proceeding is sought to be taken in the first instance is something which necessarily expires with the death of the licensee. It is urged that with the death of the first defendant there was no proceeding to be continued against the second defendant as 'holding under or by assignment from' the first defendant within the language of...
Tag this Judgment!Sp. Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Sp. Rm. Sp. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad251; (1950)1MLJ400
Subba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The judgment of the High Co art was delivered on 1-12-1948. On 19-4-1949, the application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was filed under Sections 109, 110 and Order 45, Rule 2, Civil P. C., and Section 3 of Act I [1] of 1948. By the decree of the High Court, the judgment of the Subordinate Judge was reversed. Admittedly, the value of the subject-matter in the suit as well as on appeal to the Federal Court was more than Rs. 10,000. But for the Constitution of India, the applicant had a right to appeal to the Federal Court under Sections 109 and 110, Civil P. C., subject to a certifi-cate under Order 45, Civil P. C., to the effect that the requirements of Section 110 were complied with. The learned counsel for the respondent, based his objection mainly on the ground that as the subject-matter was below Rs. 20,000 no appeal lay to the Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India (he...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chakala Chenna Chitambarappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad784; (1950)IIMLJ168
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of the Additional Second Class Magistrate of Anantapur acquitting the accused. The charge against the accused 'was that he failed to take out a licence daring 1948-49 for keeping soiled clothes for washing and washed clothes without obtaining a licence under the Madras District Municipalities Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 249 read with Section 313 (a) of the Act. Section 249 (1) reads as follows:'The Council may publish a notification in the district gazette and by beat of drum that no place within municipal limits or at a distance within three miles of such limits shall be used for one or more of the purposes specified in Sch. V without the licence of the executive authority and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein.' The relevant provision of law under which the offence is sought to be brought is Clause (a) of Schedule V which is in the following words:'Washing so...
Tag this Judgment!Tripuramallu Venkatappayya and ors. Vs. Vema Venkata Subba Rao and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad274; (1950)2MLJ261
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The judgment-debtors are the appellants in this second appeal and the question that arises for consideration is one of limitation. On 11-8-1934 the District Munsif of. Guntur passed a decree for money in O. S. No. 418 of 1933. The suit was dismissed by the appellate Court in A. S. No. 66 of 1935 on 16-10-1935. There was a second appeal to this Court (S. A. No. 117 of 1936) in which a decree for a smaller sum than that decreed by the trial Court was passed on 21-4-1939. The decree holders filed E. P. No. 628 of 1041 for attachment and sale of the properties which had been given as security in order to avert an attachment before judgment prayed for by the plaintiffs. That execution petition was ordered by the District Munsif; but dismissed on appeal on the ground that the security enured only for the decree that was passed by the trial Court. There was a further appeal to this Court in C. M. S. A, No. 137 of 1944 and this Court affirmed the decree of the appellate...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pillalamarri Venkateswarlu, a Detenu in the Central Jail Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad269; (1950)IIMLJ207
Govinda Menon, J.1. Sri Pillalamarri Venkateswarlu, M. L. A., was a member of the Madras Legislative Assembly constituted under the Government of India Act, 1935, having been elected to that body, by the general labour constituency of the district of Krishna, Guntur and Weat Godavari in the General Elections held in or about March 1946. He continued to represent this constituency in the Madras Legislature until he was arrested in pursuance of an order issued under the provisions of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act. He was arrested on 7-11-1948 subsequent to the declaration as illegal, of the communist party, of which he was avowedly an active member. Since that date, it is stated by him in his affidavit, that he has been in illegal detention in the Central Jail at Cuddalore.2. By Article 332 of the Constitution until the House of the Legislature of each State specified in Schedule I, Part A, have been duly constituted and summoned to meet for the first session under the provi...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Venkataraman Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1015
Govinda Menon, J.1. Madras Act I of 1947 designated the 'Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act of 1947' came into force on 12-3-1947 and was intended to be in force for a period of one year. But by Sub-clause (4) of Section 1 the Legislature had authorised the Provincial Government to extend the operation of the Act by means of notification in the Provincial Gazette; and this was done by the notification of the Provincial Government for a period of one year more, on the 11th March 1948, which meant that the Act was to continue till the 12th March 1949. The Act had also provided that the power of arrest and detention under the Act could be delegated by the Provincial Government to District Magistrates and to the Commissioner of Police of the City of Madras and by G. O. 907 dated 21st March 1947 this power was delegated to the Commissioner of Police of the City of Madras. Acting under that delegation, an order under Section 2(1) (a) of the said Statute was issued by the Commissioner of ...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabha Kakkothaya and ors. Vs. Keshava Derinjithaya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad239; (1950)2MLJ438
Govinda Menon, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of O. S. No. 87 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara and, since the facts are interrelated, a common judgment would be sufficient to dispose of the contentions of the parties.2. Defendant 5 is the appellant in App. No. 33 of 1947 and defendants 1 to 4 are appellants in App. No. 624 of 1946. The plaintiff, Vishnu Kakkothaya, Rama Asra and defendant 5 together executed a promissory note for Rs. 9000 in favour of the Karnataka Bank in Mangalore and received the proceeds. Inter se it was arranged that out of the Rs. 9000 the plaintiff was to take Rs. 4000, Vishnu Kakkothaya Rs. 2000, Kama Asra Rs. 3000, and defendant 5 was only a guarantor or surety to the bank for the repayment of the sum of Rs. 9000 by all the three other executants of the promissory note. This is common ground and there is no dispute whatever that defendant 6 when he joined in the execution of the promissory note did ao only as a guara...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »