Chennai Court November 1951 Judgments
In Re: S. Malliah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad831
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the 1st Class Bench of Magistrates in B.C. No. 6242 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the 1st Class Bench of Magistrates, Guntur. The learned advocate for the petitioner has taken. a proper point that, the judgment of the Bench Court does not conform to the provisions of Section 263, Criminal P. C. and that the trial thereby stands vitiated. I am entirely in agreement with the contention of the learned advocate because this summary trial being not only summary is also horribly summary. The record does not show the nature of the accusation against the accused, the substance of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from which we can infer why the magistrates believed the evidence and the defence of the accused, if any, which is not stated. On the other hand the judgment consists of a rigmarole to the following effect:'The accused pleaded not guilty. They are summarily tried. They are ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Balaraman Vs. Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad778; (1952)1MLJ655
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This application is for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Corporation of Madras. The petitioner is the proprietor of the firewood depot situated at No. 69 Guruvappa Chetty Street, Chintadripet, Madras. On 2-2-1951, the Commissioner of the Corporation refused to issue a license on the following grounds : (1) there is no space for loading and unloading inside the firewood depot; (2) the splitting is done on the road margin; and (3) there is no open space 20 feet all round in order to reduce fire risk. The petitioner appealed against that order to the Standing Committee (Health). The Standing Committee set aside the order of the Commissioner and directed the issue of the license. The Commissioner referred the matter to the council and the council passed a resolution on 11-9-1951 setting aside the sale (said?) order of the Standing Committee and restoring that of the Commissioner. The petitioner filed this application for setting aside that order ...
Tag this Judgment!M.P.S. Al. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Nachiappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad00; (1953)IIMLJ298
1. This case has given me some difficulty mainly because of an omnibus application of a set of laws in force in a particular State to another State which had its own set of corresponding laws differing in material particulars, without any attempt to make necessary amendments and alterations.2. There is no dispute as to the facts. The appellant is one of the judgment-debtors and the respondent is the decree-holder in O. S. No. 341 of 1944 on the file of the Chief Court of Pudukottai which was a suit to recover the amount due in respect of three deposits. The decree was passed on 31-3-1945. On behalf of the defendants, a plea was raised that they would be entitled to relief under the provisions of the Pudukottai Agriculturists' Relief Regulations 15 of 1938. The Court held that the defendants could not be considered to be agriculturists and rejected the plea. There was an appeal by the defendants which was dismissed. The particular plea under the above Regulation was not pressed before t...
Tag this Judgment!Dasari Janakiramayya and anr. Vs. Nune Ranganayakamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad174; (1952)IIMLJ36
Subba Rao, J. 1. The only question in this revision is whether the debt due to the respondent is exempted under Section 4(h) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Act 4 of 1938). 2. The facts are simple and are not in dispute. The first petitioner and his father executed a promissory note Ex. B 1 dated 25-4-1929, in favour of one Subbarayudu for a sum of Rs. 200. After some renewals of the debt in favour of Subbarayudu and after his death, petitioners executed a promissory note dated 16-2-1936 for a sum of Rs. 378-4-6 in favour of Perindevamma, wife of Subbarayudu. On 21-2-1926, Subbarayudu executed a Will, whereunder Perindevamma was given a life-estate in all his properties and the vested remainder was given to his daughter, Ranganayakamma, the respondent herein. Though the definite date of the death of Perindevamma is not known, it is clear from the evidence that she died only subsequent to 24-7-1938. Ranganayakamma filed S. C. No. 154 of 1944 on the file of the Court of the Subo...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Chettiar and anr. Vs. Nagalingam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad769; (1952)2MLJ249
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a second appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam modifying those of the learned District Munsif of Velangi-man at Kumbakonam in O. S. No. 139 of 1945.2. The first respondent filed the suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership. A preliminary decree was made on the 10th July 1946 upholding that the partnership was dissolved on 15th September 1944 and that the accounts of the partnership should be taken from 3rd February 1943 to 15th September 1944. Subsequent to the decree, a Commissioner had been appointed and he submitted a report. Various objections were taken to the Commissioner's report by both the parties. It is not necessary to consider all the objections raised, (sic) we are concerned in the second appeal only with four of such objections.3. The first objection is that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in disallowing compensation for collections made by the defendants. The Commissioner in his report st...
Tag this Judgment!Relam Subba Naicker Avergal, (Died) and anr. Vs. Sundarabala Kathiresa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad158; (1952)IIMLJ752
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The appellant sued the respondent for recovering a sum of Rs. 872-6-6 being the arrears of Thirva and cesses due to him for faslis 1351 to 1354. The appellant is the Zamindar of Sevalapatti while the respondent is a tenant in occupation of certain holdings within the Zamin-dari. Under the terms of the compromise decree Ex. P. 1 dated 26-4-1898 in O. S. No. 11 of 1896, the tenants have to pay the landholder cist at the rate of 14 annas per sangali of punja and Rs. 2-7-0 per kottai of nanja in addition to any new cesses or taxes that might be levied fay the Government. Calculated on that basis, the cist due to the plaintiff from the respondent comes to Rs. 135-3-0 per fasli. The suit claim in addition to the cist, comprises cesses which are said to have been newly levied by the Government and paid by the plaintiff.2. The suit was contested by the respondent 'inter alia' on the grounds that the rates mentioned in the razinama decree included all the cesses then being l...
Tag this Judgment!Nalluri Subbaiah Vs. Nalluri Raghavalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad880; (1952)IMLJ471
ORDER1. This application is thoroughly n conceived. The petitioner himself filed application before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Ongole, for an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, basing it on a alleged right in him to perform a certain festival. The Magistrate considered that the petitioner had not shown any bona fide right on his part and therefore rejected his application. After he had disposed of that application, he directed a copy of his order to be sent to the Circle Inspector of Police who was requests to institute proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner, if he intended to exorcise the right which was claimed by him. 2. We do not understand how we can interfere at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution. If and when proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are instituted against the petitioner, he will have the right to defend himself, and if, as the learned counsel for the p...
Tag this Judgment!T.M.A. Abdul Aziz Vs. Venkatachalam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad149; (1952)IMLJ836
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He is seeking to revise the order of the learned District Judge which has held that the wooden bunk which the respondent is using for the purpose of his business is not a 'building' or 'hut' within the meaning of the definition of 'building' given in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In that Act, Section 2 (1) defines a building as 'any building or hut or part of a building or hut let or to be let' separately for residential or non-residential purposes' and includes various other items referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2(1).2. The petitioner is in occupation as tenant under the respondent of a small building measuring about 14' by 31/2' and is paying a rent of Rs. 6-8-0 per mensem. The respondent, on the other hand, is in possession of a bunk constructed completely of timber measuring about 5' by 41/2'. This bunk is placed u...
Tag this Judgment!Marina Appa Rao and ors. Vs. Marina Veeranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad409; (1952)2MLJ166
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a second appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry confirming that of the Court of the District Munsif of Ramachandrapur in O. S, No. 212 of 1946.2. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Kondepudi Ramanna. He executed a Khandagutta cowle, Ex. D. 1 dated 9-6-1905, in favour of Sattiraju for a period of forty-one years. On 4-12-1915, Ramanna entered into an agreement to sell the same property in favour o the plaintiff's grandfather, Marina Veeranna. Marina Veeranna filed O. S. No. 926 of 1916 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Ramachandrapur, for recovery of a sum of money due to him on a promissory note executed by Ramanna. In that suit, on 17-9-1916 he attached before judgment the suit properties subject to his own right under the aforesaid agreement. After attachment, on 14-10-1916, Ramanna executed a sale deed conveying the plaint schedule properties to Sattiraju under Ex. D. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Cosmopolitan Club, Madras Represented by the Honorary Secy. P.M. B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad814; (1952)1MLJ401
ORDERMack. J. 1. In these two petitions, the Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, represented by its Honorary Secretary seeks to challenge the legality of the levy of sales tax on the supply of refreshments to the Club members. The 1st respondent impleaded is the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer of the Triplicane Division and the second respondent the State of Madras. 2. The prayer in C. M. P. No. 3414 of 1951 is for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to quash G. O. Ms. No. 2472 dated 21-9-49 of the Revenue Department, Government of Madras, which declined to grant exemption from such sales tax on a letter dated the 22nd of August 1949 addressed to the Honourable Minister for Finance of the Government of Madras. In that letter it was represented that there were about 1200 members on the rolls of the Club, which acorded amenities in sports, indoor games and in various directions to its members, and that refreshments were supplied to members as an amenity and not on a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »