Chennai Court August 1950 Judgments
H.S. Vodayar Vs. the Vijaya Bank Ltd. by Its Secretary B. Mahabala She ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad321; (1950)2MLJ492
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether a mofuasil Court can under Section 94(e), Civil P. C., or Order 21, Rule 68 (2), Civil P. C., or Section 151, Civil P. C., stay a sale in execution of a decree in a suit against a third party pending the disposal of a suit filed under Order 31, Rule 63, Civil P. C., by a claimant to the properties brought to sale against the claim order.2. The petitioner, Vodayar, claimed one machine of a printing press attached by the Vijaya Bank, respondent 1, as belonging to respondent 2, the Badavara Bandhu Press, the judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 371 of 1943 on the file of the District Muusif, Mangalore, to be his, and filed a claim petition, R. I. A. No. 1266 of of 1948, under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C. That petition was dismissed. Thereupon he filed a claim suit (O. S. No. 84 of 1949) under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P. C. for staying the sale of the printing machinery attached under the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mandalapu Paddayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad329; (1950)2MLJ569
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by accused 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 in S.C. No. 60 of 1919 on the file of the Sessions Court, Guntur, for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c), Constitution of India, that our decision in R. T. No. 47 of 1950 and Cr. App. Nos. 139, 140, 141 and 183 of 1950 confirming their convictions under Section 147, Penal Code, and Sections 325 and 149, Penal Code for rioting and three counts of constructive grievous hurt caused, to three persons during the rioting, while setting aside the convictions of some of them for murder, and actual grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, and rioting, is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. As no conditions under Article 134(1)(c) have been framed by this High Court, or provisions made by the Supreme Court regarding this matter under Article 146, Clause 1, referred to in Article 134(1)(c), and as no ruling of the Supreme Court interpreting Article 134(1)(c) has been reported so far...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuru Satyanarayana Vs. Bolisetti Nagabushanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad429; (1950)2MLJ647
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is civil miscellaneous second appeal filed by one Satyanarayana, respondent 4 in E. P. No. 228 of 1946, which was merged in the revived E. P. No. 283 of 1943 in O. S. No. 173 of 1931 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Repalle, against the orders of both the lower Courts overruling his objections and directing the execution petition to proceed and his properties to be sold for realising the decree amount.2. The facts were briefly these. B. Nagabhushanam, the decree-holder, obtained a simple money decree on a promissory note for Rs. 600, dated 6-2-1930, against one B. Ramayya, the executant and his surety P. Sitaramaswami, in O. S. No. 173 of 1931. The decree amount was scaled down, and, after several E. Ps., with which we are not now concerned, E. P. No. 283 of 1943 was filed by the decree-holder on 17-9-1943 for recovering more than a thousand rupees due under the scaled down decree with subsequent interest and costs. That E. P. was undoubtedly fi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.C. Venkataswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad262; (1950)IIMLJ474
Subba Rao, J.1. These two applications are filed for review of a judgment and decree in A. S. No. 351 of 1945 and A. S. No. 78 of 1946. The judgment was delivered on 12-4-1949. These applications were filed on 11-7-1949, i. e., on the 90th day from the date of judgment. The relevant articles of the Court-fees Act read thus :'Art.4 : Application for review of judgment, if presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree.Thefee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appealArt.5 : Application for review of judgment, if presented before theninetieth day from the data of the decree Onehalf of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.2. As the 89th day happened to be a Sunday, and therefore a holiday, the petitioner contended that Article 5 applied, and that, he need only pay one half of the fee leviable on the memorandum of appeal. The Master rejected that contention relying upon tha decision in In re Kota, 9 Mad. 134. The learned Judgea in that case held t...
Tag this Judgment!The Governor-general of India in Council, by the General Manager, the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad327; (1950)2MLJ506
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff entrusted on 11-12-1943 a parcel of iron screws to the South Indian Railway, Ernakulam, and consigned it to a client at Vishakapatnam. To Vishakapatnam the parcel would have had to travel over the lines of the South Indian Railway up to Jalarpet, on the M. & S. M. Railway from Jalarpet Waltair, and on the B. N. Railway from Waltair to Vishakapatnam. The South Indian Railway were able to satisfy the plaintiff that the parcel had been safely handed over to the M. & S. M. Railway authorities, Jalarpet. In answer to interrogatories, the M. & S. M. Railway stated that they had entrusted the goods to the B. N. Railway at Waltair, but they produced no evidence in support of this, and the case proceeded on the basis that the parcel was in the custody of the M. & S. M. Railway, who are the petitioners here, at all relevant dates. After much correspondence the plaintiff sent a notice on 29-9-1945 purporting to be a suit notice addressed to the Secretary of State for I...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramaswami Chetty and anr. Vs. B. Venkatarama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad409; (1950)2MLJ490
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor in E.P. No. 3 of 1947 in O. S. No. 51 of 1940 on the file of that Court. The preliminary decree in O. S. No. 51, directed the payment of a sum of money as maintenance to one Venkatarangamma who was the plaintiff in that suit with a charge on certain items of property which are now sought to be sold. The judgment-debtors in that suits are the contesting respondents now. The preliminary decree came up in appeal to this Court in A. S. No. 178 of 1913 and Leach C. J. and Shahabuddin J. modified the same by enhancing the rate of maintenance from Rs. 75 a month to Rs. 100 a month. The charge allowed on certain properties was left intact. Since the judgment-debtor did not act according to the preliminary decree, a final decree was passed for sale of the properties on 6-7-1946. It has to be mentioned that before the final decree was passed, Venkatarangamma assigned her rights to Venkatarama Reddi, the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.S. Rathnavelusami Chettiar Vs. M.R.S. Manickavelu Chettiar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad542; [1951]21CompCas93(Mad); (1951)IMLJ5
Raghava Rao, J. 1. There are in the main two interesting questions of company Jaw involved in this case: (1) whether the suit out of which this second appeal arises is maintainable; and (2) whether a resolution of the share-holders of a company known as Vel Brothers Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the company) of 3-11-48 removing the plaintiff from its Managing Directorship, and appointing defendant 1 as Managing Director instead, is invalidor illegal. The facts which require to be stated for appreciating the points arising for decision are these. Defendants 1 and 2 called upon the Managing Director, the plaintiff, by letter dated 28-9-1948 to convene a meeting for electing a new Managing Director in place of the plaintiff. The reply of 27-10-48 that was given to it by the plaintiff was that since the general meeting was anyhow going to be held on 30-12-1948 the matter might be considered at that juncture. Finding that the plaintiff did not take action on their letter within 21 ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurizala Vuddandam Vs. Juluri Venkatakameswara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad470; (1950)2MLJ807
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur in a suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of the advance paid by him to the defendant in respect of a contract of purchase of immovable property.2. The contract of purchase is vouched by Ex. A-1. In that exhibit the parties have agreed on 24-7-1947 that the defendant should sell the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 19,800, and that on that date a sum of Rs. 500 was paid by way of advance, the defendant agreeing to receive the balance of consideration of Rupees 19,300 from the plaintiff within two months from the date of the contract and to execute and deliver registered, to the plaintiff on appropriate stamp paper, a sale deed. In and by the terms of the said contract, it was further agreed that the defendant shall put the plaintiff in possession of the property under sale at the time of the registration of the document. Before the period of two...
Tag this Judgment!Vurakarnam Lakshmi Narasimham Vs. Golanki Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad668; (1950)2MLJ670
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. There are two connected cases before me, a civil revn petn & a civil miscellaneous second appeal with a memo of objections in the latter. They arise out of E. P. No. 62 of 1944 in O. S. No. 28 of 1934 on the file of the Dist Munsif of Eluru. The E. P. was held to be out of time by the learned Dist Munsif, but has been held on appeal to be in time . No question arises in regard to that on the facts & the dates which are not in controversy between the parties, & I need only say that I uphold the view of the lower appellate Ct. in this respect.2. Having held the E. P. in time the lower appellate Ct said in regard to a certain attachment before judgment in the case that although the decree-holder did not make a prayer for a sale in pursuance of that attachment in-his original petn, the learned Dist Munsif should allow him to amend the petn by praying for it. The decree was passed on 19-9-1934. The attachment before judgment referred to above had already been effected...
Tag this Judgment!Koneru Satyanarayana Vs. Vempati Kodandarama Sastri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad770; (1950)2MLJ665
Raghava Rao, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two summary suits for rent on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, Bezwada & Bandar division. The lands in respect of which rants were claimed are situate in the inamvillage of Kuchipudi in the district of Krishna which, according to the line of argument adopted in this Ct. must be taken to have become an estate for the first time under the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act XVIII [18] of 1936. At the time that the Act came into force there was Ex. C, a khat of 12-4-1932 in force between the Agraharamdars, the pltfs. & the tenant, the deft. The Deputy Collector held that the rent fixed by that document had to be altered suitably to the fact of permanent occupancy right which the Act for the first time conferred upon the deft. & that a fair & equitable rent payable should be ascertained by him by substituting for the bags of paddy stipulated under that document what might represent half of the net income of the land as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »