Chennai Court January 1951 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.
Gurusami Naidu Alias Chinnasami Naidu Vs. Villis Guruswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad812; (1951)1MLJ426
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petnr. was convicted by the Asst. Ses. J. of Coimbatore, under Section 211, I. P. C. & sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years. His appeal to the Ses. J. having been dismissed, he has come to this Ct. in revn. 2. The material facts are the following: About 8-30 p.m. on 15-10-1947 when the petnr. Guruswami was on the verandah of his garden shed, he received certain injuries either as the result of a gun shot or as the result of the explosion of a country bomb. He was taken to the hospital at Udamaipet where he was examined & attended to by the local Asst. Surgeon. His cousin, also called Guruswami, went to the police station at Udamaipet at about 9-30 p.m. & told the Sub-Inspector & the Circle Inspector that the petnr. had been shot & that he had been brought to the hospital. The Sub-Inspector did not take down this statement of Guruswami in writing. Instead, he merely made an entry in the General Diary to this effect: '21-30 hours. G. Guruswami Naidu...
Hooson Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad876; [1951]21CompCas274(Mad); (1951)1MLJ704
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. Hooson Kasam Dada(India) Ltd. is admittedly a public ltd. com. regd.in Calcutta. It has got a branch functioning atMadras. The Asst. Custodian of Evacuee Propertypassed an order on 22-2-1950 which concludesthus : 'Hence considering the above circumstances I declare the firm of Hooson Kasam Dada (India) Ltd., in Madras as evacuee property Under Section 2 (f) of the Ordinance & will be notified accordingly.' There is some obvious confusion here. It is only property that can be declared to be evcuee property & a firm as such is not property. It must be again pointed out that there is a very important difference between a ltd. co. & a firm. The circumstances which, in the opinion of the Asst. Custodian, justified the order which he passed, were that 96 out of 121 share-holders of the co. were in Pakistan & they were evacuees Under Section 2(d)(i) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949. 2. Assuming that the majority of the shareholders of the co. could...
Dr. M. Krishnamoorthy Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad882; (1951)1MLJ709
Rajamannar C.J. 1. The petnr. was employed, as an Asst. District Health Officer in the Public Health Department of the Madras State & he acted as the Municipal Health Officer at Srivilliputtur from November 1947 till about the middle of May 1948. On complaints against him from the residents of the locality sent to the Director of Public Health and other authorities; there was first an enquiry by the District Health Officer and subsequently by an officer of the Crime Investigation Dept. The Govt. finally refd. the matter to the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal for an enquiry. The Tribunal called upon the petnr. to show cause against certain charges which included a charge of corruption. The petnr. filed a written statement meeting the charges. The Tribunal proceeded with the enquiry, recorded evidence & submitted its report dated 31-10-1949 to the Govt. The Tribunal recommended that the petnr. may be removed from service. Govt., apparently did not agree that this was a sufficient penal...
The Official Receiver of Ramanathapuram, Representing the Estate of th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad935; (1951)2MLJ200
ORDERSatyanarayana Rao, J.1. This case was referred to a Division Bench by my Lord the Chief Justice for an authoritative decision on the question whether the qualification 'aggrieved by a decision' in Section 75(1), Provincial Insolvency Act necessarily applies to the debtor, creditor & the Receiver expressly named in that sub-section. That question has since been authoritatively decided by a Full Bench of five Judges in Narasimha v. C. Ramayya. C. M. A. No. 470 of 1946; but there is another question which, in our opinion, requires consideration by a Full Bench, viz. whether the Official Receiver, who unsuccessfully applied for prosecuting the insolvent under Sections 69 & 70, Provincial Insolvency Act, is a person aggrieved by the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. If the test laid down in Ex parte Official Receiver; In re Reed Bowen & Co., (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 174 & In re Lamb; Ex parte Board of Trade, (1894) 2 Q. B. D. 805, were to be applied which considered similar language...
Minor Ramaiya Konar Alias Ramaswami Konar, by Father and Guardian Nate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad954; (1951)IIMLJ314
Rajamannar, C.J.1. I have bad the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by my learned brother Viswanatha Sastri J. and I am in entire agreement with his reasoning and conclusion. If I add a few words it is because the question raised in the case is not covered by decided authority.2. Sabapathy Padayachi and Muthuvelu were undivided brothers. Muthuvelu died on 17-8-1943 leaving behind him his widow Alamelu. She sold a house which was a part of the joint family property to the first appellant in this second appeal. In the ordinary course Sabapathi would have become entitled to the entire joint family property on the death of his brother Muthuvelu. But the appellant relied on the right conferred on a widow by Section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). To meet this claim based on that Act, the plea was raised on behalf of the contesting respondent that at the time of the death of her husband Alamelu was leading an unchaste lif...
Seshagiri Aiyar Vs. Valambal Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad377
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the decision of Panchapakesa Aiyar J. in C. M. S. A. No. 17 of 1948.The matter arises out of execution proceedings in pursuance of the mortgage decree in O S. No. 512 of 1936, District Munsif Court, Kulitalai and the appellant in the appeal is the auction-purchaser in those execution proceedings.2. One Muthurathnam Iyer filed O. S. No. 512 of 1936, District Munsif's Court, Kulitslai to enforce the security bond dated the 28th May 1928 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the members' of a chit fund. The security was created on three items of property. Item I is a wet land bearing S. No. 188/2 of the extent of 1 acre 60 cents. Item 2 is a wet land bearing S. No. 299/1 of the extent of 84 cents and item 3 is dry land bearing S. No. 222/4 & measuring 4 acres 93 cents. The fourth defendant was impleaded in the suit as she claimed to be a puisne mortgagee over items 1 and 2 under a mortgage deed dated the 14th September 19...
V.P. Abu Syed Sahib Vs. V.P. Ahmed Mohideen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad722; (1951)1MLJ429
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The main contention of Mr. Krishnamurthi on behalf of the petnr is that, the dispute in this case really relates to a mill, which is situated in the premises mentioned in. the preliminary order & that the definition of 'land' mentioned in Clause 2 to Section 145 does not, include mills & therefore this cannot be the subject of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. It is no doubt true that the definition of the land mentioned in Clause (2) of the section does not mention mills as being included in the definition. Land or water has been defined to include buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of the land. The definition does not say that the land means buildings, markets etc. It says it includes also buildings, markets etc. The definition is not exhaustive. It is only illustrative. The crops or other produce, i.e., things that could be cut & carried away fall under the definition of the term land. It has been held in 'Rev A. Rampus v. Subba Redd...
In Re: K. Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1951
Reported in: (1951)1MLJ430
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted under Section 7(2) of Act I of 1947 and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment.2. The offence consists in their being members of the Communist Volunteer Corps and disobeying the provisions of G.O. No. 275 Public, dated 6th February, 1948. Under the provisions of the said G.O., the members of the Communist Volunteer Corps were prohibited from holding processions, meetings or assemblies or from performing drills or parades, with or without arms. It is only when the members of the Communist Volunteer Corps perform such drills they could be said to have committed an offence under Section 7(2) of Act I of 1947 as it is a violation of the G.O. passed on 6th February, 1948.3. The proof that these petitioners are members of the Communist Volunteer Organisation consists in the testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 5. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 5 that his version regarding the identification cannot be acted upo...
K.K. Rm. Muthayee Achi (Died) and anr. Vs. A.K. Rm. S. Rm. Sabbiah Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad903; (1951)1MLJ573
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment & decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in N. S. No. 65 of 1945. That was a suit for recovering Rs. 13,013-14-11, the balance of principal, after giving credit to Rs. 930-8-0 paid on 14-11-1944, & Rs. 556-13-4, the interest due on the promissory note, Ex. P. 1, executed by the deft, on 8-11-1944 for Rs. 13,710, the amount found due on taking of accounts on 8-11-1944, in respect of the dealings between the pltf. Subbayya Chettiar, & the deft's deceased son, Ramanathan Chettiar, & for Rs. 1,000 paid in cash on the date of the promissory note. The defence was that there was no settlement of accounts or taking of accounts on 8-11-1944, that Rs. 1,000 in cash was not paid on that day, that the deft. did not execute Ex. P. 1 with the knowledge that it was a promissory note, & that her signature was obtained to Ex. P. 1 on the fraudulent representation that it was a document for taking a boy in adoption for her deceased s...
Mrs. A. Ananthalakshmi Ammal Vs. Tiffin's Barytes, Asbestos and Paints ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad60; [1951]21CompCas294(Mad); (1951)2MLJ586
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., directing the directors of Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos & paints Limited., to convene and hold the annual general meeting of the company on Sunday the 28th January 1951 after giving due notice to the shareholders as provided under the articles to consider certain subjects. This order was made on an application filed by the appellant who is a shareholder on the allegation that the last annual general meeting of the company had been held on 30th December 1948 and there had been no annual meeting for over 15 months. There is no appeal by the company or the directors against the order directing the holding of the meeting. But the share-holder who applied to the Court and who Is the appellant before us seeks in this appeal the appointment of an independent person to preside over the meetinp as Chairman. Such a request was made to the learned Judge, but he thought that no case had been made out for appointing an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »