Chennai Court April 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.
Venkatarama Naicker Vs. Ramasami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad504a; (1951)IIMLJ32
ORDER1. This is a revision petition under Section 75 of the Provincial insolvency Act, by one Venkatarama Naicker, hereinafter called the opposing creditor, against the judgment & decree of the Dist. J. of Tirunelveli in C.M.A. No. 5 of 1945, dated 12-3-1946, allowing the respondents hereinafter called the proving creditors, to prove certain debts of theirs holding them to be recoverable from the estate of the insolvent, Narayanappa Naicker, to the extent held to be true & binding. The memorandum of cross-objections is against the debts not allowed to be proved as they were held to be not true & binding on the insolvent. 2. The facts are briefly these: Narayanappa Naicker, the insolvent, was adjudged insolvent in I. P. No. 40 of 1923 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli. He was the lather of one Venkatasami Naicker who predeceased him & was said to have been the manager of the Joint family. Venkatasami Naicker had also several children who were minors at the time of the I. P....
Mohammad Ismail Maricair Vs. Wazir Bi Bi Saheba
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad311; (1950)2MLJ385
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is a petition foe revising the order of the District Munsif of Vel-lore directing that the plaintiff in O. S. No. 406 of 1948 on his file be examined on commission in the house of the counsel for the defendant. An advocate was appointed commissioner to examine her. The suit was for the recovery of a jewel or its value, and the amount alleged to be due on a band loan from the defendant. Inthe affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the application for the issue of a commission to examine her, she stated that she was a Muslim gosha lady and according to the law and custom among her people, she did not attend Court. She prayed that she may be examined at her residence. The defendant filed a counter affidavit in which he did not deny the statement of the plaintiff that she was a purdhanashin lady. The application was, however, opposed on the ground that its purpose was to substitute some one else in place of the plaintiff behind the purdah. It was suggested t...
Km. Kr. Kr. Ramanathan Chettiar by Partner Km. Kr. Kr. Lakshmanan Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad314; (1950)2MLJ624
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The facts necessary for appreciating the question of law which arises in this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant field a suit to recover amounts due for principal and interest under three promissory notes dated 21-8-1929, 28-8-1929 and 4-9-1929. The suit was filed on 9-8-1944. The appellant relied upon four endorsements of payment to save the claim from the bar of limitation. The last of such endorsements was made on 9-8-1941. It has been found by both the Courts below that these endorsements are of 'open payments' which would not save the claim from the bar of limitation under Section 20, Limitation Act, as it stood before the Amending Act XVI [16] of 1943. The appeal was argued on that assumption. The contention on behalf of the appellant was that the Amending Act applied to the suit and the endorsements would be sufficient within the meaning of Section 20 as amended by it. Both the Courts held that the appellant could not rely upon the Amending Act, becau...
In Re: K.J. Verghese
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad789; (1950)IIMLJ199
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner has been found guilty by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Coonoor, for an offence under Section 3(12), Madras Towns Nuisance Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20.2. Section 3 (12) deals with disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public place. The indecent behaviour that is attributed to the petitioner who is a Municipal Councillor is that while going on a public road he uttered in loud tones the following words:'It appears some fellow--let his mother and wife be ravished--informed the Sub-Inspector that Bahadur Khan (referring to the second accused) should be arrested. Can they--fellows who ravish mothers--pluck a hair.' The question now is whether this will constitute indecent behaviour.3. It is contended by Mr. Kasturi that it is at best only abusive or indecent words uttered and this does not constitute behaviour. The term 'behaviour' is not defined. But the Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning as deportment or manners. Uttering these words in ...
In Re: Sakthi Velu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad212; (1950)2MLJ767
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in a case in which the petitioner, who had been acquitted at the trial held at the third criminal sessions of 1949 of this Court, was found guilty, on appeal, by the State under Section 411-A, Criminal P. C., and sentenced to transportation for life. Article 134, Clause (1) of the Constitution of India provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India, if the High Court has, on appeal, reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death. On the face of it, this provision cannot apply because the petitioner has not been sentenced to death on appeal by the State. But the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Sub-clause (c) which says that if the High Court certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court, an appeal shall lie. Our attention h...
The Province of Madras Represented by the District Collector Vs. the D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad397; (1950)IIMLJ663
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The Province of Madras, represented by the District Collector, Tanjore, is the appellant in this second appeal and the respondent is the District Board of Tanjore by its President. The suit raises a dispute regarding water rate demanded by the Government. The management of certain inam villages belonging to a chatram is vested in the District Board. The chatram in question is Mohanam-balpuram Chatram situated at Rajamatam. The villages were granted in inam to the chatram by a late Rajah of Tanjore. The grant of these inams was recognised at the time of the inam settlement, and the grant was confirmed. The channel known as Puttuvanachi Vari, is the source of supply of water for the irrigation of the inam villages, and the channel is admittedly situated within the limits of the inam villages. From time immemorial, the water from the channel was drawn for the purpose of irrigation of the lands in the villages without any liability to pay water cess to the Governmen...
Chekka Subrahmanyam Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad416; (1950)2MLJ656
ORDERPanchapagesa Sastri, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of S. C. S. No. 212 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kakinada. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 400 and odd for loss of goods sent through the M. & S. M. Eailway. He gave notices, Ex. A-1 dated 22-8-1946 to the Chief Commercial Manager, M. S. M. Railway, EX. A-8 of the same date to the Manager, M. S. M. Railway and Ex. A-6, a notice under Section 80, Civil P.C., to the Secretary, Governor-General of India in Council, Department of Railway, New Delhi. Amongst several defences raised by the defendant the objection to the validity of the notice, Ex. A-6, is pressed. The trial Court held that proper notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. was not given and dismissed the suit.2. In revision it is argued that Ex. A-6 satisfies the requirements of Section 80 and that the lower Court is wrong in holding otherwise. That notice was issued to 'the Secretary, Governor General of India in Council, Department of Railways, New Delhi', ...
Janapareddi Tirupati Rao Vs. Kancherla Veeraswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad686; (1950)1MLJ630
Satyanarayana Rao, J.This is an appeal against the order of the learned Dist Judge of West Godavari, directing, under Section 70 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, that a complaint may be filed against the 'insolvent as in his opinion, there was ground for enquiring into offences referred to in Section 69 of the Act. The main argument in this appeal is that there is no proof that any of the acts contemplated by Section 69 of the Provincial Insolvency Act were in fact committed and that therefore the order of the learned District Judge is unsustainable. In my opinion, it is unnecessary under Section 70, to establish, before launching a prosecution, the various offences referred to in Section 69. All that Section 70 requires is that the Ct. should be satisfied that there is ground for enquiring into any offences referred to in Section 69. It is not necessary, & the Ct is not bound, so far as the language goes, to make a preliminary enquiry even. In the present case the learned District Ju...
N.N. Meyyammai Achi Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1950
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ12
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This is a petition in revision to quash the search warrant issued under Section 96, Criminal Procedure Code, on 4th March, 1950, by the Additional Sub-Magistrate of Karaikudi under the following circumstances.2. The first accused, who is the father of the second accused, the petitioner herein, adopted the complainant in June 1920. Sometime thereafter, that is, in or about the year 1929, misunderstandings arose between accused 1 and the complainant for reasons which it is unnecessary to state here and the complainant was living away from the first accused and his family. The partition of the family properties having been effected sometime in the year 1939, the complainant executed a release deed in consideration of his gaving received a sum of about a lakh of rupees. Thereafter, an attempt was made by the sons of the complainant to have the release deed set aside on grounds of undue influence and inadequate consideration, which proved unsuccessful. On 4th June, ...
In Re: V.S. Shanmuga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad276; (1950)2MLJ399
Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this application the petitioner seeks both for a writ of certiorari and for a writ of mandamus. The certiorari is sought to quash the order of the Board of Revenue refusing to interfere on behalf of the petitioner with the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar levying stamp duty and penalty on a document which the officer held to be a partition deed. The only ground on which this writ is sought is that the Board did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to be orally heard. There is nothing in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder which enjoins on the Board the duty to give an oral hearing to a person who invokes their revisional jurisdiction. All that qunsi judicial Tribunals like the Board of Revenue have to do is to give sufficient opportunity to the persons who approach them for the exercise of their jurisdiction to state their case. Local Government Board v. Alridge, (1915) A. C. 120 : 84 L. J. K. B. 72. This opportunity has been given to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »