Chennai Court August 1950 Judgments
In Re: Mustafa Maracair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad787
ORDERPanchapagesa Sastri, J.1. This is a revision by accused 22 & 23 against their conviction by the Sub-Magistrate of Vedaranniarn, confirmed on appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mannargudi, for an offence under Section 30-A, sub-CLAUSE (4), Emigration Act, VII [7] of 1922. They have been sentenced to pay a fine of RS. 10 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. 2. The case for the prosecution is that accused 22 is the owner of the boat, and accused 28, the broker employed by him; accused 1 to 21 attempted to leave India without a permit, accused 1 to 5 being the crew and 6 to 21 being the passengers. When the boat had gone out some little distance from the shore it was intercepted and brought back. Accused 1 to 21 were arrested. Statements were taken from the tindel or master and also from the passengers. These statements showed that it was accused 22 and 23 that arranged for this trip and particularly accused 22 was present at the time when the passen...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Balasundara Pavalar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad7; (1950)2MLJ616
Govinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner herein was the fourth accused in S. C. No. 35 of 1950 on the file of the Court of Session of the West Tanjore division and he was convicted under Section 401, Penal Code, and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge. Criminal App. No. 494 of 1950 is against the said conviction and sentence. This appeal came on for admission before our learned brother Panchapagesa Sastri J. on 28-7-1950 and notice has been issued to the Public Prosecutor under Section 422, Criminal P. C. Along with the appeal petition, Cr. M. P. No. 1548 of 1950 had also been preferred by the petitioner praying that he might be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal. The learned Judge rejected the bail application and refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The present application has been presented on the 8th of this month praying that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail pending the disposal of the appeal. Criminal M. P. No. 1548 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. the North Vellore Thottapalayam Town Co-ope ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad661; (1951)IMLJ192
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The pltf is the petnr. In 1928 he executed a mtge over some of his properties in favour of the North Vellore Thottapalayam Town Co-operative Bank, for a sum of Rs. 300. The amount was repayable in instalments. A clause in the deed of mtge entitled the bank in case of default by the pltf to take possession of the hypotheca and appropriate the income towards the debt due to it. The pltf fell intoarrears & the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed what is called an award but which is really in the nature of a decree. In execution of this award the hypotheca was sold on 23-2-1935 & purchased by deft 2 for Rs. 610. The sale was confirmed on 14-4-1935 & the sale certificate was issued in due course. According to the pltf, the secretary of deft 1 bank is a relation of his. Deft 2 who purchased the property at the auction sale is also another relation of his. The pltf alleged that there was an understanding between him and the president of deft 1 bank a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Savitri Bai Nagan Goud and ors. Vs. Gutti Thotappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad425; (1950)2MLJ475
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioners herein are defendants 1 to 5 and 7 in O. S. No. 2 of 1950 on the file of the Sub-Court of Bellary and they seek to revise the finding given by the lower Court on issues 1 and 2, viz., that the suit is not tarred by Section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act and that the lower Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The first six defendants in the lowerCourt, as well as the plaintiff, constituted the managing body of the Hospet Co-operative Stores Ltd., registered under the Co-operativeSocieties Act and the society was defendant 7 in the suit. The respondent-plaintiff sued for adeclaration that the resolution of the managing body dated 30-10-1949 purported to have been passed by defendants 1 to 5 removing the plaintiff from the presidentship of the society and appointing defendant 1 as President of the Hospet Co-operative Stores is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires of the powers of thedirectors and consequently for a permanent injunct...
Tag this Judgment!Puthen Veetil Karuvankandi Unichira and ors. Vs. Karanora Raru Nayar K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad674; (1951)IMLJ51
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The question for determination in this second appeal is whether a certain E. P. No. is in time. On 10-6-1932 one Sankaran, who subsequently died, obtained a decree for arrears of rent in O. S. No. 219 of 1932 on the file of the Dist Munsif of Quilandy. When he was alive, Sankaran filed in succession three execution petns, the last of which was E. P. No. 324 Of 1939. This was disposed of on 17-7-1939. After the death of Sankarah, one Kunni Raru, claiming to have become the Karnavan of the tavazhi filed E. P. No. 553 of 1942 for the recovery of the decree amount. Notice was ordered to the judgment-debtors and eventually on 11-8-1942 the petn was dismissed for non-payment of batta. On 5-7-1944 Kunhi Raru in the same capacity filed another E. P. No. 272 of 1944. In this also notice was issued to the judgment-debtors in the counter which they filed, the Judgment-debtors pleaded 'inter alia' that Kunhi Raru was neither the heir nor the legal representative of the dece...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimavarapu Venkatasubbayya Vs. Addanki Bapadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad458; (1950)2MLJ672
Raghava Rao, J.1. An interesting point has been raised by Mr. Krishnamurthi for the appellant in this case. The suit was laid by the respondent before me for a declaration of his title and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession. The plaintiff rested his title upon a certain sale deed dated 11-10-1930 and also upon a prescriptive title by enjoyment had by him all along from the date of that sale deed. The defence, so far as material to the disposal of the present second appeal, is that there was an award on a reference to arbitration which is binding upon the plaintiff and precludes him from filing this action. The learned District Munsif of Ongole dismissed the suit giving effect to the defence above referred to.2. The award was pronounced on 12-1-1944 and registered on 24-3-1944. On 9-3-1944 it was that the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was instituted.3. The learned District Munsif at the end of his judgment says :'As the award...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Abdul Lazeez Vs. Kandoth Pakker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad495; (1950)2MLJ804
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this case is whether an application filed for the appointment of a Muthavalli, when there is already one in management of the wakf, though not a validly constituted muthavalli, is sustainable. This question was answered against the petitioner by the District Judge of South Malabar.2. For a proper understanding of the contentions raised on either side, it is useful to set out briefly a few facts. One K. P. Mohammad created a wakf by a document dated 19-5-1935 dedicating a house, a shop and a paramba in Ponnani, South Malabar District, the object of the wakf being feeding of the poor and other charitable functions like the chanting of katham etc., on the anniversary day of the founder's father's death. Under the deed he constituted himself as the first muthavalli and appointed his mother to succeed to him as muthavalli in case she survived him and directed that there. after his daughter who was then a minor should bec...
Tag this Judgment!Gomraj Punamchand Vs. Sogmal Dhanaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1950
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ85
Raghava Rao, J.1. An interesting point of law under the Indian Arbitration Act has been argued by Mr. Subramaniam in this case. The facts lie in a short and narrow compass. There were certain disputes between the parties in relation to a partnership concern of theirs. The disputes were referred to arbitration and there was a settlement of the matter by the arbitrators, the terms of which are to be found set forth in a document known as parikhat, Ex. B-2, and happened to have been carried out also by an entry in the katha of the defendant, Ex. B-1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted for the recovery of Rs. 2,261 alleged to be due to the plaintiff by the defendant on the basis of the settlement evidenced by Exs. B-1 and B-2. The case of the plaintiff is that what took place was merely a mediation and not a strict arbitration proceeding which resulted in an award as such. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that the parikhat and the katha referred to in t...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Rowji Gore Sastri Vs. the Malabar District Board by Its Special O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad493; (1950)2MLJ810
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. The plaintiff in S. C. S. No. 138 of 1947 has filed this petition in revision against the decree and judgment of the District Munsiff of Calicut. This petition arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 129-8-0, being the arrears of rent at enhanced rate from 1-10-1946 to 2-7-1947. The plaintiff, who is the owner of two buildings in Calicut, let them out to the District Board at a rental of RS. 15 and Rs. 25 each. After the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XV [15] of 1946 came into force, he claimed enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 20 and Rs. 34 respectively from the District Board. The respondent District Board replied that they could not of their own accord agree to pay enhanced rate, but that if he so chose, he could move the Rent Controller for fixing the fair rent. Thereupon the plaintiff filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixing fair rents at the rate claimed by him, namely, Rs. 20 and Rs. 34 fro...
Tag this Judgment!Thummalapalli Lakshmi Narayanamurthi and anr. Vs. Sait Purnachand Chat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad417; (1950)IIMLJ661
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. Only two points arise for determination in these two civil miscellaneous second appeals. The first is whether both the lower Courts went wrong in overruling the appellants' plea of limitation and allowing the receiver of Court to be brought on record, after 12 years had elapsed since the passing of the decree, to represent the judgment-debtors already on record even though the receiver was functioning for the judgment-debtors at the very time when the execution petition was filed. The second point which is only raised before me and in the lower appellate Court, and was not taken before the trial Court is that there has been a partition in the family after the decree in execution now was got against the manager of the joint family, and that the decree-holder, therefore, could not proceed against the shares of the junior members without establishing their liability and the exact quantum of their liability in a fresh suit. This second point cannot be gone into as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »