Chennai Court January 1951 Judgments
M.G. Murugesam Chetty Vs. E. Kanniappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad124; (1951)2MLJ194
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. We are In entire agreement with the Judgment of Ralagopalan J. As the facts have besn stated fully and accurately in his judgment, we shall not repeat them. There were two Judgment-debtors and in this appeal we arc only concerned with the second judgment-debtor. The decree-holder after obtaining the transmission of the decree to the Court of District Munsif of Poonamallee filed an execution application in that Court for execution against the first defendant only. It was during the pendency of the petition that the decree-holder died and his legal representatives who are the appellants before us filed an application in this Court '(No. '313 of 1938)'. In that application, they prayed that an order may be made bringing them on record as the legal representatives of the decree-holder and to grant them leave to execute the decree by continuing the execution proceedings started by the deceased in the District Munsif's Court of Poonamallee. Notice of this application went...
Tag this Judgment!Govindarajulu Alias Jayaraman Vs. Balu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad1; (1951)2MLJ209
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of Hindu law. The facts are not now in dispute. The properties in suit belonged to one Kandaswami. He had a son Nataraja, but this son predeceased Kandaswami. Kandaswami died on 28 1-1945 leaving behind him three daughters the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The fourth defendant who is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal, it has now been definitely found, is the illegitimate son of Nataraja by his permanently kept concubine. The suit was laid by one of the daughters of Kandaswami for recovery of possession of a third share of the properties which were admittedly the self-acquired properties of Kandaswami, defendants 1 and 2, the other daughters, practically supported the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant 4 claimed that he was entitled to the properties in the right of his father, Nataraja, on the ground that he was entitled to represent the father and share the inheritance. The District Munsif and the Subordin...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. K.M. Vedantam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad183; (1951)1MLJ554
Subba Rao, J.1. The accused was charged under three counts under Section 420, I.P.C., and was convicted by the Court of the Joint First Class Magistrate, Coonoor, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 for each of the three offences, in default to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for three months. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore set aside the conviction. The Public Prosecutor preferred the above appeal.2. The ease of the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows. The accused was the highest bidder for the year 1947-48 at the auction of minor forest produce in Ooty, Seegur and Mudumalai ranges. The amount of his bid was Rs. 10,750, and he paid 25 per cent of the bid amount, that is Rs. 2,887-8-0, on 25th June 1947 and 26th June 1947. He represented to P.W. 1 and her father P.W. 3 that he urgently required money for depositingthe balance of the bid amount with the forest department and that P.W. 1 believing his representations lent him a sum of Rs. 5,600 on three pr...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Jacob Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad886; (1951)1MLJ511
Subba Rao, J. 1. The accused was charged under two counts for having contravened Section 15 (a) & (b). Madras General Sales Tax Act. He was convicted for the offence of contravening the provisions of Section 15 (a) but acquitted of the charge of contravening the provisions of Section 15 (b). The Public Prosecutor has preferred the appeal against the order of acquittal. 2. The facts are not in dispute & they may be stated briefly. Jacob Nadar & Mylappan were patnrs. of the firm Mylappan & Co. Jacob ceased to be a patnr. of the firm in December 1947. The firm was liable to pay sales tax to the extent of Rs. 3953-8-0 for the year 1946-47. Notice demanding the payment of the arrears of tax from the firm was served upon Mylappan on 31-3-1948. As the amount was not paid in time the Asst. Commercial Tax Officer filed a complaint against Jacob Nadar, the other patnr. The question is whether Jacob Nadar, on whom no notice was served is guilty of the offence. 3. The relevant provisions of the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R. Krishnaswami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad852a; (1951)1MLJ673
Rajamannab, C.J.1. This is an appln. to quash the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirapalli, dated 24-10-1950 & the proceedings of the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, dated 20-11-1950. The petnr. was granted a permit to run a bus on the route Turaiyur to Mohanur via Musiri & Kattuputtur. That route lies partly in the Tiruchirapalli district & partly in the Salem district. As provided by Section 63, Motor Vehicles Act, the permit was granted by the Tiruchirapalli Regional Transport Authority & it was counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, for that portion of the route lying in the Salem District. The permit granted to the petnr. was suspended for one month by the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirapalli, on 24-10-1950 on the ground that there had been an overload on the bus on 9-9-1950. It is not denied that the petnr. was given notice of the ground on which this suspension was ordered, & according to the affidavit, he was also given an ...
Tag this Judgment!Batcha Sahib Vs. Periyanayagammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad163; (1951)1MLJ690
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The document of compromise executed by the parties does not appear to have been before either of the Courts below so that we do not know for certain whether as a matter of actual fact that document was attested or not. The copy of the decree in O. S. No. 577 of 1936 shows that two advocates appeared for the petitioner and a pleader for the first defendant and in the ordinary course of practice, the learned District Munsiff would not have accepted the compromise and embodied it in a decree of his Court if counsel on both sides had not signed the document to vouch for its authenticity. The probability is therefore in favour of the view that the document was actually attested.2. Even if it was not, I do not think that it vitiates the decree and the charge it created. In those cases where parties enter into a compromise and that compromise is embodied in a decree of Court, we have to make a distinction between the substance of the transaction and the formalities nec...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Mohamed BahauddIn Vs. Mujee Bunnisa Begum Sahiba
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad280
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. The father of the minor applies for removal of the present guardian Mujeebunnissa Begum, who is the mother of the minor, from guardianship, and for appointment of himself as the guardian of the person of the minor. The present guardian, who is the Respondent, was married to the Petitioner and owing to certain differences there was a divorce of this marriage. She applied in O. P. No. 59 of 1947 for appointment of herself as the guardian of the person of the minor, who was then achild at about two years of 'age. The Petitioner consented to her being appointed and by an order of this Court dated 20-3-1947 made in the said O.P. No. 59 of 1947, the present Respondent was appointed as the guardian of the person of the minor. Subsequent to this, there were certain proceedings in the Presidency Magistrate's Court under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code for orders as maintenance of the minor and a sum of Rs. 12/- was fixed as the monthly maintenance to be pai...
Tag this Judgment!R. Lakshmi Narasa Reddi Vs. the Official Receiver, Sree Films Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad890; [1951]21CompCas201(Mad); (1951)1MLJ488
1. This is an appeal against the judgment & decree of Mack J. in Appln. No. 4621 of 1949 in O. P. No. 94 of 1949 dismissing the appln. of the applt. Lakshmi Narasa Reddi for excluding his name from the list of contributories settled by the Official Receiver in Sri Films Ltd. in liquidation. The relevant facts are briefly these. Sri Films Ltd. went into liquidation by an order of this Ct. on the original side on 4-7-1949. It seems to have been started as a private co., limited, in an informal kind of way, in December 1945; for, the minutes show that it was in existence on 26-12 1945. One Lakshminarayana, one of the patnrs. of Lakahmi & Co, the managing agents of Sri Films Ltd., was the moving spirit, getting subscribers & share-holders. Under the Articles of Assocn., the directors were the normal persons to allot shares. But there is also an article giving wide powers, including, obviously, the power to allot shares, to the managing agents. This Lakshminarayana is alleged by the applt. ...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Pillai Vs. Balasubrahmanya Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad178; (1951)1MLJ472
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The question for consideration In these two petitions is whether an order passed by the, District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, under Order 44, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, rejecting two petitions to entertain pauper appeals, against the judgments and decrees in O. S. Nos. 37 and 40 of 1949 on the file of the A.D.M., Tiruchirapalli, after bearing the counsel for the petitioner, can be interfered with and set aside in revision simply because the points urged, by the learned counsel who appeared for this petitioner in the two O. Ps, are not set out and discussed, and the order simply runs as follows: 'I see no reason for 'thinking that the decision ofthe lower Court is contrary to law or is otherwiseerroneous. Petition rejected.' 2. Mr. Vydianatha Aiyar, for the petitioner in both the civil revision petitions, relied on the ruling In 'Chennamma in re: 53 Mad 245. There, it was held by a Bench of this Court, consisting of Ven-katasubba Rao and Madhavan Nair, JJ.,...
Tag this Judgment!Yerram Koti Reddi Vs. Nagineni Venkayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad813; (1951)IMLJ347
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petnr. filed a petn. to set aside the election of the resp. to the Vellampalli Firka in the Dist. Board, Guntur. The petn. came up for hearing before the Election Comr. on 21-3-1950 when the resp's counsel prayed for time. His appln. tor adjournment was, however, refused & the Election Comr. went on with the enquiry & examined the witnesses tendered by the petnr. On the evidence before him he passed an order setting aside the election of the resp. Subsequently the resp. filed an appln. purporting to be under Order 9 Rule 7 & Section 151, C. P. C. praying the Election Comr. to set aside the order by which his election was set aside. The Election Comr. found that the resp. had sufficient cause for not attending the hearing & allowed the appln. The petnr. seeks to have this order quashed on the ground that the Election Comr. had no jurisdiction to entertain an appln. under Order 9 Rule 7, C. P. C. 2. The question is whether this provision of the C. P. C. applies to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »