Chennai Court July 1950 Judgments
Naginlal Hiralal Javeri Through Authorised Agent V. Govinda Menon Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad358; (1950)2MLJ572
Subba Rao, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits O. S. No. 51 of 1946 and O. S. No. 67 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mathurai. Gopalakrishna Talkies is a Cinema Theatre situate in the West Masi Street, Mathurai town. On 23-5-1916 the Hindi picture of 'Kannoon' was being exhibited in the theatre. The late Jeshubhai D. Patel, his wife and plaintiff 1, with three others attended that show at 7 p. m. and occupied the seats in the balcony of the said theatre. After the show started there wa3 rain and heavy gale and the front ornamental wall above the roof of the theatre fell down over the roof and the roof and the truss underneath gave way and collapsed and Patel and his wife along with others received serious injuries. The injured persons were removed to the Government hospital at Mathurai and unfortunately Patel succumbed to the injuries and died in the hospital on 25-5-45. Pushpa Ben, his widow who was pregnant at the time of the injury, gave birth to a...
Tag this Judgment!Kora Bala Thripurasundara Rao Vs. Ratala Kotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad753; (1951)IIMLJ39
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. The pltf. is theapplt. in this appeal. His suit for a declarationof title & possession of plaint B schedule properties was dismissed by the lower Ct.2. The property in suit originally belonged to one Govindu who died on 5-10-1897 leaving behind him his widow Veeramma & two daughters Peda Kanakamma & China Kanakamma. Veeramma died on 19-4-1909 & according to the pltf's case, the inheritance was divided between the two daughters in 1910. Peda Kanakamma was married to Bollayya, the father of the deft. She died in 1913. China Kanakamma who is still living surrendered theestate under a deed of surrender of 14-8-1946 EX. A. 1 to her son, the pltf. The pltf. sues in this suit to recover possession of half of the inheritance of his maternal grandfather which came into the possession of Peda Kanakamma by virtue of the partition of 1910 after the death of Veeramma & which continued in the possession of Bollayya, the husband of Peda Kanakamma & after his death with the de...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Kutti Vs. Parappil Madhava Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad407; (1950)2MLJ494
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. The only question that arises in this revision is whether the petitioner is a tenant within the meaning of Madras Act, XIV [14] of 1930. The learned District Munsif held that he was not a tenant and therefore dismissed the application for stay under Madras Act XVII [17] of 1946. The petitioner is in possession of certain dry lands wherein ginger millets gingelly, modan paddy are grown in different portions of the land in different years. He came into possession of the suit lauds under a varumpattam chit dated 21-12-1920. In Section 3 (w) (1), Malabar Tenancy Act 'verumpattamdar' is defined as follows :' 'Verumpattamdar' means a tenant other than a kanamdar of kuzhikanamdar of a holding, for agricultural purposes, which includes wet lands, and may or may not include other landa.''Wet land' is defined to mean 'land which is adapted for the cultivation of paddy'. The learned District Munsif after a consideration of the various circumstances, having regard to the natur...
Tag this Judgment!Pulavarti Sitaramamurty and anr. Vs. Bangaru Sobhanadri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1950
Reported in: (1950)2MLJ505
1. This is a petition for revising the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Kakinada in S.C.S. No. 239 of 1947. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiffs, Bangaru Sobhanadri and Bangaru Krishnamurthi, had sued Pulavarti Sitaramamurthi and Pulavarthi Viswanadham for recovering damages of Rs. 789-13-6 for alleged breach of contract said to have been committed by the defendants in connection with the delivery of 50 bales of gunny bags consisting of 400 bags per bale. The contract, Exhibit A-1, was entered into on 8th July, 1947. Under its terms, 25 bales had to be delivered by 1st September, 1947, and the other 25 bales by 1st October, 1947, and it was expressly stated that the delivery order should be taken by the plaintiffs only after paying the amount to the defendants. The price was fixed at Rs. 85-8-6 per 100 bags. The plaintiffs, admittedly, did not go to the defendants with the money due and demand delivery, as the contract expressly required them to do. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Varasuki and Co. Through One of Its Partners P.S. Subbaraman Vs. the P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad254; (1950)2MLJ449
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment; and decree of the District Judge of Tirunelveli in O. S. No. 1 of 1947 and raises an interesting question of law. The appellant, who was the plaintiff, filed a suit against the Government for a declaration that the sales-tax collected from him to the extent of Rs. 1202-8-6 on tha turnover calculated only on the price of the gunny bags containing the salt sold by him (excluding, of course, the price of the salt, which is exempted from sales-tax) was illegally collected and ought to be refunded to him as salt could not be sold except after being put into gunny bags and he had merely purchased the gunny baga from dealers for the sake of filling them with salt and had included only the cost price of the gunny bags in the ultimate price charged by him for the salt baga. The learned District Judge held that only salt had been exempted from sales-tax and not the gunny bags in which id had been packed and that the gunny bags coul...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ammunje Narayana Naik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad261; (1950)2MLJ334
ORDERPanchapagesa Sastry, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the conviction under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. It has been found that he sold rice to three customers to whom he issued receipts. The complaint against him is based on the fact that the addresses of the persons were not noted, though the names were given and also that the licence number of his shop was not found in the counterfoil kept by him. These facts are now admitted. The question is whether an offence is made out Both the lower Courts have held that these facts disclosed an offence, and the first Court sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 250 on each count. The appellate Court however reduced the fine to Rs. 100 in each case.2. In revision it is contended that the offences are very technical. I agree, but the more serious contention is that there is no proof of mens rea on the part of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Bholaprosad v. The King, 53 C. W. N. 300 : ...
Tag this Judgment!Kruthuventi Ramakrishna Rao Vs. the Province of Madras, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad684; (1950)2MLJ631
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question arising for determination in this second appeal is whether certain proceedings taken by the respondent before me, the Province of Madras represented by the District Collector of Krishna, Chilakalapudi under Section 7 of Madras Act III of 1905 are valid. The applt sued in the Ct of the Dist Munsif of Masulipatam for a declaration of his right to the plaint schedule land & for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his enjoyment thereof by means of such proceedings or in any other manner. The land in question is part of survey No. 160/1 of Krithivennu village and the applt holds the entirety of the survey number under a patta from the zamindar, who is the owner of the village. The learned District Munsif decreed the suit subject to the rights of the villagers of the adjoining villages of Gollagudem, Seeta-napalli & Sangumudi to take their carts through, the suit land from 15th January to 1st July of each year, that being the period du...
Tag this Judgment!The Electro Mechanical Industries Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal No. 2 f ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad839; (1950)IIMLJ479
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application arises out of a reference dated 27-6-1949 made by the Workers of the Electro Mechanical Industries Ltd. in respect of certain disputes between themselves represented by the Workers' Union and management. There were sixteen items of dispute and the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, after due inquiry made an award on 5-11-1949. The management seeks from this Court a writ of certiorari to quash the award in respect of two of the items of dispute.2. The first item relates to the deduction of eight days wages from the employees as per the notice of the management dated 19-4-1949. The workers claim a return of the wages deducted. The deduction was made by the management because of a strike by the workmen on 18-4-1949. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the strike wag not legal and therefore the management was not wrong in punishing the men who went on strike. The provision which enables the management to make a deduction of wages in a case of this kind is...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gadea Nagabhushana Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad249; (1950)2MLJ278
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of probibition against the Election Sub- Committcee of the All India Congress Committee, the President of the Andhra Provincial Congress Committee and the District Congress Committee, the Presidents, taluk and town Congress Committees and the Returning Officers of the various taluks and towns in the district of Guntur for the Primary Congress Panchayat elections prohibiting them from holding Congress Primary Panchayat elections in the district of Guntur, and to insue an interim prohibitive order prohibiting the Returning Officers of the taluks and towns in the district of Guntur from holding Congress Primary Panchayat elections and to issue directions to the various authorities to prepare the electoral rolls of primary Congress members and qualified members as per the rules of the Constitution and circulars issued by the various authorities and give such other directions and grant such further reliefs as the circumstance...
Tag this Judgment!Kosaraju Thirupathirayudu and ors. Vs. Kosaraju Venkatasubbayya and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad678; (1950)IIMLJ812
Govinda Menon, J.1. By an agreement, Ex. A. 1, dated 20th September 1945 six persons referred the disputes between them to an arbitrator and in that document various points in dispute have been recited which the arbitrator had to decide and pass an award. One of the points was with regard to the cash in the possession of one of the executants by name Venkatasubbaiah, who was the second executant of Ex. A. 1. Subsequently, on 7th October 1945, there was another document styled 'an agreement of further reference' Ex. A. 2 by which it was stated that if Venkatasubbaiah were to pay Rs. 10000 in the manner mentioned in that document into the hands of the arbitrator in order that the same may be paid over to the other partners in full satisfaction, he should not thereafter have any concern in respect ofthe profits or losses of the mill and that the others will have nothing to do with the cash balances then with him. The arbitrator, after an elaborate consideration, was of opinion that Ex. A,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›