Chennai Court August 1950 Judgments
T.E. Ebrahim Saheb Vs. the Regional Transport Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad419; (1950)2MLJ592
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These two applications are connected and relate to the same matter. The petitioner in the two applications is one T. E. Ebrahim Sahib. He is the lessee of a site in Ward No. 6 in Tanjore Town which has been used as a bus stand in accordance with licences granted from time to time by the Tanjore Municipality. The stand is situated near the railway station and it is common ground that from several years past it has been the only bus stand in the town and it has been the place from and at which all bus traffic to and from places such as Kumbakonam, Pattukottai, Tiruvarur etc. was starting and terminating. Some time in 1947, there appears to have been a complaint that the bus stand was narrow and inconvenient and thereupon the Municipality discussed a proposal to construct a new bus stand at another suitable place. The Eegional Transport Authority also appears to have convened meetings to consider the question of shifting the bus stand, but the subject was dropped in May...
Tag this Judgment!Nanduri Saradamba Vs. Konala Gavaramma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad663a; (1950)2MLJ814
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are all connected matters & present a story of tangled & chronic litigation. The facts, in a nut-shell, are these. Saradambal is the judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 153 of 1940, a mtge suit. The preliminary decree in suit was passed against her & in favour of Gavaramma, the decree-holder, for more than Rs. 3400, on 28-8-1941. The final decree was passed on 16-2-1945. The sum due by the judgment-debtor at the time of the sale, on 11-3-1946, of 2 acres 40 cents, out of the mtged properties amounting to 6 acres 16 cents, was about Rs. 4250, according to her counsel, & Rs. 4500, according to the decree-holder's counsel. The 2 acres 40 cents were, admittedly, sold on 11-3-1946, for Rs. 4150, leaving only a sum of Rs. 100 as balance, according to the judgment debtor, & a sum of Rs. 300 or Rs. 350 as balance, according to the decree-holder. The judgment debtor alleged that there was an agreement entered into with her by the decree-holder some time in March 1944--th...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Rao Vs. C.K. Rangai Gounder, Managing Trustee of Sri Koniyamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad650; (1951)IMLJ588
Govinda Menon, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for a declaration of the plaintiff's title and right of management as well as for recovery of possession, of the suit house together with past and future rent or damages by way of use and occupation. The Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore has held that the plaintiff is entitled to the property claimed by him with all the rights of management of the said property; but the relief for possession was disallowed. There is a further direction that the plaintiff is entitled to collect the rents from such of the defendants as are occupying portions of the suit house and utilise the funds for the ceremonies stipulated in the will of Ranoji Rao. There were directions regarding deposit of rent by the second to the fourth defendant along with the order to pay future rent at the same rate. Other minor reliefs were awarded to the plaintiff which it is not necessary to mention in detail. The first defendant has appealed against that decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Pillai and ors. Vs. Ranganathan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad686a; (1950)2MLJ769
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Because his clients were not ready, their advocate, through another advocate, reported no instructions. The suit was then decreed ex parte. In an application to set aside the ex parte decree, the advocate tendered the same Vakalath, which was held by the Ct not to be a proper vakalath, as the advocate had withdrawn it when he reported no instructions in the suit. The application to set aside the ex parte decree was therefore dismissed. In appeal, the learned Dist Judge affirmed the order of the District Munsif.2. I have no doubt that the Cts below decided this matter correctly. When a vakil reports no instructions, it means that he withdraws his vakalath. If authority was necessary for that it is found very clearly in 'Manick-am v. Mahudum Bathummal', 47 Mad 819 :AIR 1925 Mad 21 , when the learnedChief Justice in several parts of his judgmentequates the reporting of no instructions to thewithdrawal of the vakalath. The learned counsel for the petnr here relies on 'Ba...
Tag this Judgment!The Andhra University, a Corporate Body with Its Headquarters at Vizak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad870; (1951)IMLJ518
Raghava Rao, J.1. The facts of this case are simple & further not many. They lie in a short & narrow compass & require but a brief statement. The pltf. was a clerk in the service of the deft. the Andhra University, down to 3-1-1940, the date of his dismissal by its Vice-Chancellor, Sir C. R. Reddi, after his inquiry into the offence of theft of a B. Ed., diploma from the records of the University of which he found the pltf. guilty. On appeal taken by the pltf. to the Syndicate, the Syndicate finding no power of dismissal vested in the Vice-Chancellor treated his order as a recommendation which it accepted by its order dated 25-6-1940 after constituting a Committee to go into the matter & obtaining a report from it without any independent inquiry by the committee. The pltf. thereupon sued for a declaration that the orders were unjust & illegal. The deft. resisted the suit by pleading that the orders were just & legal, as also that the suit for a bare declaration was not maintainable wit...
Tag this Judgment!A.L.S.P.Pl. Subramania Chettiar (Decd.) and anr. Vs. Moniam P. Narayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad48; (1950)2MLJ472
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. The point referred by the Bench to this Full Bench for an authoritative decision is 'whether a non-agriculturist surety would be liable for the entire debt even though the principal debt was scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act.' 2. The facts are briefly these : plaintiff 1 (since deceased) had brought 0. a. Ho. 471 of 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, against the five defendants for recovering Rs. 6746 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 22-9-1933, executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for ES. 1500 repayable with interest at 86 per cent, per annum, but he claimed only at 24 per cent, per annum. Defendants 4 and 5 were the minor sons of defendant 1. Defendant 8 was a surety for the debt and had executed a letter of guarantee and renewed his liability thereunder, just as the principal debtors had renewed their liability for the debt under endorsements. So ...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Rayalu Iyer Nagaswami Iyer and Co., Through One of Its Partners, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad107; (1951)IMLJ153
ORDERChandra, Beddi, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of! the Principal Subordinate Judge of Madura in I. A. No. 11 of 1945. This appeal involves the interpretation of Section 14 of Act IV [4] of 1938. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. For an appreciation of the question that arises for decision in this appeal a few material facts may be stated. A mtge. was'exeeuted by deft. 1 for himself & as the guardian of his son, deft. 2 in September 1921 for a sum of Rs. 50,000. As the debt was not discharged, the mtgee. filed a suit O. S. no. 114 of 1925 on the file of the Sub-Ct. Madura, on foot of the mtge. against defts. 1 & 2 on the basis that the properties mortgaged were the self-acquired properties of deft. 1 though the father of deft. 1, Thothan Chetti, & his paternal uncle were alive. During the pendency of that suit Thothan Chetti, the father, & Muthuvedugan Chetti, the uncle, filed two applns., I. A. Nos. 159 and 160 of 1926 to get themselves impleaded as parties t...
Tag this Judgment!Ps. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Narayanaswami Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad63; (1951)IMLJ35
Balakristma Ayyar, J. 1. The two questions referred to the Full Bench are :'1. Whether a debtor who was an insolvent on 1-10-1937 and 22-3-1938, but whose adjudication was subsequently annulled has saleable interest in the property on the two crucial dates?2. Would it make any difference if, though the adjudication was annulled, the properties of the insolvent, either in whole or in part, were vested in an appointee of the Court under Section 37, Provincial Insolvency Act and continued to be so vested at the time when the application for scaling down was filed,' 2. These are the circumstances underwhich the two questions have arisen: In 1927 one Palani Goundan and his son executed a mortgage over some of their immovable properties in favour of one of their creditors named Somasundaram Chettiar. Another creditor named Arunachalam Ghettiar applied to have the mortgagors adjudicated insolvents on the ground that the mortgage in favour of Somasundara amounted to a fraudulent preference. Th...
Tag this Judgment!M. Desikachariar Vs. Ramachandra Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad56; (1951)IMLJ23
Subba Rao, J.1. The question referred to the Fall Bench is whether an order under Section 20, Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV [4] of 1938) is appealable.2. Section 20 of the Act reads as follows :'Every Court executing a decree passed against a person, entitled to the benefits of this Act, shall on application, stay the proceedings until the Court which passed the decree, has passed orders on an application made or to be made under Section 19: Provided that where within 60 days after the application for stay has been granted the judgment-debtor does not apply to the Court which passed the decree for relief under Section 19 or where an application has been so made and is rejected, the decree shall be executedas it stands, notwithstanding anything contained inthis Act to the contrary.' Under this section, every person entitled to the benefits of the Act may apply for the reliefs mentioned therein. It is, therefor, obligatory on the Court to decide whether the applicant is an agricu...
Tag this Judgment!Vinnakota Veeraju Vs. Kamarsu Balakoteswara Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad67; (1951)IMLJ42
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. The points referred by the Bench to this Full Bench for anauthoritative decision are : 1. Whether a creditor is entitled to retain payments made towards interest in excess of the interest palpable tinder the provisions of the Act without adjusting them towards the principal 2. Whether there is any distinction in principle between a debt to which the provisions of 8. 8 apply and that governed by the provisions of Section. 9? The material facts are these. Respondent 1, for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, executed a mortgage deed, Ex. D-1, dated 10-8-1936, in favour of the appellant for a sum of Es. 5000, with interest at.9 per cent, per annum. The consideration for the mortgage deed was made up of the following items : (1) A sum of Es. 2892 due on a promissory note executed by defendant l on 8-12-1935 in renewal of other promissory notes, the earliest of them being of the year 1929, (2) A sum of Es. 70 taken by him for purchase of stamps, (3) A sum o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »