Chennai Court August 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.
M. Pooran Singh Vs. Krishna Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad396; (1950)2MLJ757
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff, the defendant, arid one Dei Singh were three brothers who partitioned their house No. 36 Kutchari Road, Mylapors, by a registered partition deed, under which they agreed that in the event of any one of the brothers wishing to sell his share of the house he should sell it to the other brothers at the market value. Dei Singh sold his property some years ago. Recently the defendant entered into negotiations with a stranger and agreed to sell his share of the house to him for Rs. 1700. The negotiations went so far that the stranger deposited Rs. 100 as earnest money. Purporting to comply with the terms of the partition deed, the defendant then wrote to his brother, the plaintiff, and told him that he had entered into negotiations with the stranger to sell his property to him for Rs. 1700 but that as he was under the obligation under the partition deed to offer it first to the plaintiff he expressed his willingness to sell it to him for the aforesaid sum of Rs. ...
A.S. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. M.K. Srinivasa Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad289; (1950)2MLJ472b
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. The plaintiff in a certain suit on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Padmanabhapuram, Travanoore State, is the petitioner here. After obtaining decree in the suit he got it transferred to the Court of Small Causes here, and sought a warrant of attachment for moveables belonging to defendant 2 in the suit. Defendant 2 thereupon filed the petition out of which this civil revision petition arises asking for stay of execution of the warrant of attachment issued on three grounds : (1) that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to execute the decree of a foreign Court; (2) that the Travancore Court had no jurisdiction to pass any decree against him ex parte because he was not a resident of the Stats at the date of suit and he never submitted to the jurisdiction of that Court; and (3) that the suit and the application on their face were barred by limitation. The three objections were upheld by the Court below which consequently dismissed the execution ...
Vemana Venkama Naidu and ors. Vs. Sayed Vilijan Chisty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad399; (1950)2MLJ587
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 are the appellants. Plaintiffs, who are Muslims, sued for partition and recovery of possession of certain lands on the ground that they had been improperly sold when they were minors, by their mother acting as their guardian, to the predecessor-in-title of defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiffs' father, Syed Khaja alias Abbas, was entitled along with three brothers and a sister, to a 4/7ths share of certain properties. All the sharers including the plaintiffs' father mortgaged their 4/7ths share under Ex. D-8 dated 23-8-1915, in favour of Papa Naidu, the predecessor of defendants 1 to 4, for Rs. 4500. This mortgage was renewed after the death of the plain-tiffs' father by their mother, acting on her own behalf and as guardian of her minor children, as well as the other sharers in the property, under Ex. D-4 dated 16-5-1927, for Rs. 7860. A sum of Rs. 680-13-0 out of the consideration for EX. D-4went in discharge of a decree which had been obtain...
Kajjam Lakshminarasamma Vs. Tanniru Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad491; (1951)IMLJ150
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are three connected petitions. C. R. P. No. 318 of 1947 is a petition against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, dismissing E. P. No. 62 of 1944 in S. C. no. 200 of 1932, on the ground that the petition to amend the E. P. by adding a prayer to transfer the decree to the original side was barred by limitation, the decree itself having been passed on 16-1-1933, and the application for transferring the decree to the original side E. a. No. 483 of 1946, having been made only on 16-9-1946, long after the 12 years' period under Section 48, Civil P. C., had expired, and the application for amendment of the E. P., E. A. No. 517 of 1946, having been filed only on 8-10-1946, long after the expiry of the 12 years' period under Section 48, Civil P. C., C. R. P. Nos. 319 and 320 of 1947 are filed against the orders of the Subordinate Judge rejecting the prayers in those two Execution Applications.2. I have perused the entire records, and heard...
Timmalapalli Virabhadra Rao Vs. Sokalchand Chunilal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad796; (1951)IMLJ244
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. These are two petns. to revise the order of the Disk J., Eluru in C. M. A. No. 123 Of 1947 & C. M. A. No. 25 Of 1948 on his file.2. The more material facts are these. On 11-3-1946 the Official Receiver sold the properties of the insolvent in I. P. Nos. 21 & 22 of 1933 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru. One Virabadra Rao the petnr. before me was the successful auction purchaser, the amount of his bid being Rs. 15,500. On 29-3-1946 two creditors of the insolvent named Bapiraju & Viraswami filed I. A. No. 820 of 1946 before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru,praying that the sale be set aside. One Chunilal, another creditor of the Inslvt., probably entertained fears that Bapiraju & Viraswami might not prosecute their petn. diligently & so on 22-12-1946 he applied to be added as the 3rd petnr. in I. A. No. 320 of 1946. The petn. which Chunllal so filed was numbered as I. A. No. 44 of 1947. On 11-2-1947 this I. A. No. 44 of 1947 was dismissed because even th...
Sabapathy Mudaliar Vs. Mahalinga Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad353; (1950)2MLJ539
Govinda Menon, J.1. In O. S. No. 2 of 1932 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore a decree was passed on 19-12-1932 for a sum of Rs. 6328-6-6 with interest and costs. There was an appeal against that decree to this Court which was dismissed on 31-l-1938. Subsequently an application for scaling down the decree under the provisions of Madras Act IV [4] of 1938 ended in the decree being scaled down in favour of the judgment-debtor. Even prior to the scaling down of the decree, there was various petitions for execution, but still a portion of the decree amount remained unrealised.2. The execution petition out of which the present appeal arises viz., E. P. No. 35 of 1946 was tiled on 17-12 1945 and would be in time according to Article 182 (5), Limitation Act, if, on an application filed on 10-2-1941, a 'final order' had been passed. The lower Court has found that there was no step in-aid of the execution as a result of the petition filed on 10-12-1941. It is necessa...
Boddu Seetharamaswami and ors. Vs. Bhagavathi Oil Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1950
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ147
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the respondent to recover damages in a sum of Rs. 7,392 for breach of the contract to sell 2,800 tins of ground-nut oil. The plaintiff is a firm of merchants with their registered office at Calcutta, but they have a branch also at Vizianagararn. The defendants are brothers being members of an undivided Hindu family and carry on business at Vizianagaram under the name and style of Boddu Pydanna and Sons. They deal in ground-nut oil and other commodities. On the 9th November, 1944, the defendants agreed to sell to the plaintiff 2,800 tins of ground-nut oil at Rs. 148 per candy, the delivery of goods to continue from 8th December, 1944. The plaintiff's case was that they had applied for the delivery of the goods on the 8th December, 1944, but the defendants wanted more time, and ultimately as the market was rising the defendants with a view to escape from their liabili...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.P. Rao (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1; [1950]18ITR825(Mad); (1950)IIMLJ580
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a cage referred to us under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, 1922, by a Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred to this Court for decision the following question :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case set out above, the sum of Rs. 3000 received by the respondent as remuneration for acting as an arbitrator under Section 234, Madras Local Boards Act of 1920, was a receipt exempt from assessment under Section 4 (3) (vii), Income-tax Act?'The undisputed facts are briefly these: The assessee, Mr. V. P. Rao, was a member of the Indian Civil Service and a Judge of the Madras High Court before he retired from service in June 1941. He was also a Barrister but never practised at the Bar. After retirement he had also no whole time profession, vocation or occupation, when he was leading the life of a pensioner. In September 1941, some 3 1/2 months after his re...
In Re: Natesan Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad529; (1950)IIMLJ545
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The four petitioners who were accused 1 to 3 and 7 in the Court of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Sirkali, were convicted by that Court, petitioners 1 to 3 ofan offence under Section 324, Penal Code, and petitioner 4 of an offence under Section 324 read withSection 511, Penal Code. Petitioners 1 to 8 weresentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks and petitioner 4 was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 or in default to suffer rigorous impri-sonment for one month. Along with them seven others also were charge-sheeted but before the case came to the Sub-Magistrate, Sir-kali, and while it was before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mayavaram, they were discharged under Section 253 (1), Criminal P. C. Against their conviction, the petitioners preferred Cri. App. No. 60 of 1948 and that was heard by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tanjore who confirmed the convictions and sentences. Hence this revision petition. 2. The ...
The Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. Vs. G. Ramakrishna Ayyar and P. Nara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1950
Reported in: (1950)0LLJ1043Mad
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The first respondent in this petition was an employee of the petitioner in one of its several branches and he was in charge of the stores in the yard in its Vizianagaram Office. On 28th January 1950 he was served with a notice informing him that the petitioner-company was terminating his services from the end of the month as they were no longer required, and that he will be paid his salary for the month of February in lieu of notice. The first respondent immediately addressed the petitioner-company a letter in which he expressed surprise at the contents of the company's letter and desired to be enlightened with the reasons, if any, for terminating his services so suddenly. The company sent the laconic reply that his services were terminated as they were no longer required by the company. Thereupon, the employee (first respondent) preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Est...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›