Chennai Court November 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.
R.M. Ramachari Vs. M.B. Ramachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad143; (1952)IMLJ166
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a petition filed by one R. M. Ramachari, a resident of Mathurai, for transferring a criminal case filed by him, in the first instance, against his agent, another Ramachari, in the court of the Stationary Sub Magistrate, Amaloru subsequently transferred to the file of the First Class Joint Magistrate, Rajahmundry.2. The facts are: This petitioner, Ramachari, according to himself, is a partner of a registered firm of R. M. Ramachari & Co., carrying on handloom cloth business in Mathurai. This petitioner has got a branch at Dwarapudi in East Godavari district. The accused, another Ramachari, is said to have been his agent and clerk in charge of the branch at Dwarapudi. In these circumstances, this petitioner filed a complaint against that agent before the Second Class Magistrate at Alamoru in C. C. No. 338 of 1951, for offence of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation under Sections 403 and 408, I. P. C. It is significant that this complaint relates to...
Abdul Azeez Vs. Pathumma Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad754; (1952)1MLJ463
1. The point that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the plaintiff, who is a minor under the Indian Majority Act but who is a major according to her personal law, is entitled to bring a suit for dissolution of her marriage without a next friend. The learned District Munsif of Ottapalam, who heard the petition of the defendant filed under Order 32 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that the suit O. S. No. 496 of 1950 on the file of the said Court should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff therein being a minor was not entitled to bring the suit without the next friend, dismissed the same following the decisions in 'Ahmed Sulaiman v. Mt. Bai Fatma', AIR 1931 Bom 76, 'Nakase-Tan Bibi v. Habibar Rahiman', AIR 1948 Cal 66 and Khatom bi v. Abdullatin', 4 Cal 78 (sic) and holding that the plaintiff was competent to sue for dissolution of her marriage without a next friend and that the suit as framed was maintainable. The defendant has preferr...
Pudusseri Vadakkethil Vikraman Alias Kunhikuttan Nair Vs. V. Krishnan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad396; (1952)IMLJ452
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The defendant who is the petitioner in tins civil revision petition seeks to revise the order of the Small Cause Judge who gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff under the circumstances sot out in the said judgment. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 250 lent in cash and interest thereon towards an Agreement to sell a piece of land to the plaintiff. The defendant petitioner contended that the alleged agreement was false, that he never received any money and that the suit was filed out of spite. 3. When the point for determination was set down as to whether the plaint claim was true and binding on 1-2-1950 both the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement which was endorsed on the reverse of the plaint. 4. The agreement consists of two parts. The first part is signed by the plaintiff and his counsel and that part- is to the effect that if the defendant would take an oath in Parambathuk-kudu Bhagavathi Amman ...
In Re: S. Gopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad413; (1952)1MLJ470
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. The criminal revision petitioner lost his temper and abused the complainant a woman in grossly abusive and deliberately insulting language, and the argument put forward on his behalf is that the essentials of the section have not been made out. I regret my inability to accept this contention. Section 504, I. P. C., requires two essentials. There must be intentional insult of a person and thereby due provocation to him or to her and secondly the person insulting must intend or know it to be likely that such provocation would cause prejudice to the public peace. But it has been laid down by a long line of decisions that the offence may be committed under the section without the person likely to commit the breach of peace being not provoked. In order to sustain the conviction under this section it is sufficient for the complainant to prove that the abusive language was such as would ordinarily provoke the man or woman of his or her position to commit a breach of the p...
Annamalai Ammal Vs. Sundarathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad404; (1952)2MLJ782
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This second appeal raises a question relating to validity of a gift of a reasonable portion of the joint family property by a father in favour of his daughter, a few years before her marriage. The gift in question was made by the father of the plaintiffs, one Mahalinga Nadar, under Ex. P. 1 dated 3-2-1921. Under that document the donor gave a life estate to defendant 1 his wife, & a vested remainder to the plaintiff in 3 acres and 17 cents of dry land and a house. Defendant 1 was married by the said Mahalinga Nadar, as his first wife, who was no other than the first defendant's sister, was sickly. As the two wives of Mahalinga Nadar could not pull on together, defendant 1 began to live separately with her daughter, the plaintiff herein, and in 1921 as stated above, Mahalinga made a gift of the property in the manner mentioned above. Sometime after the death of the donor, defendant 1 executed a release deed in respect of the said property in favour of defendants 3 an...
In Re: Mathali Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad812; (1952)IMLJ276
Somasundaram, J. 1. The Additional Sessions Judge of Salem has found the accused guilty of murder of one Sellappa Goundan, uncle of the accused and sentenced him to death. 2. The occurrence is said to have taken place adjoining the road which leads to Sankari railway station near a batel 'mundy. On the night of 19th October 1950 at about 10 p. m. P. Ws. 7 and 12 who were living near the 'mundy' heard cries 'Aiyo, water water'. They came out each with a lantern and found the deceased Sellappa Goundan sitting on a cot in front of tne 'mundy' under a 'pandal' with a spear in his hand which is M. O. 1 in the case. His 'dhoti' was bloodstained. They gave him water and as the deceased wanted that word should be sent to his wile, P. W. 7 sent P. W. 8, one of the bays working in the mundy, to go and fetch his wife. He went and told the wife of the deceased (P. W. 1) that her husband was lying on a cot in front of the mundy with a wound on his abdomen and that he was sent by P. W. 7 to inform h...
C. Sambandam Vs. the General Manager, South Indian Railway, Tiruchirap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad54; (1952)1MLJ540
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a wireman in the Marine Department of the South Indian Railway Co. On 11-3-1950 he was served with a notice dated 27-2-1950 issued by the respondent under the Railways Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949. The contents of thatnotice so far as they are material for purposesof this petition are as follows: 'Whereas in the opinion of the 'competent authority' as denned in Rule 2 of the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949 (who in your case is the Chief Mechanical Engineer, S. I. Railway, Golden Rock) there are reasonable grounds (which are given below) for believing that you are engaged in subversive activities and that consequently you are liable to have your services terminated under Rule 3 of the said rules;You are hereby required to state within 14days of the receipt of this notice whether you accept or deny the accuracy of the above allegation. If you do not reply within that period...
S.V. Angidi Chettiar Vs. Nataraja Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad557
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This matter has now been fully argued by counsel. It is established beyond any controversy that though the definition of 'contributory' would raise a doubt as to whether a fully paid up share-holder would come within the term, he is a 'contributory' and can, under Section 166 of the Indian Companies Act, file a petition for winding up as any other contributory. Apart from the English decisions, Indian Courts have placed this beyond any dispute. In 'Sabapathi Press Co. Ltd. v. Sabapathi Rao', 53 Mad 38, with reference to a similar argument raised on the definition of 'contributory' in Section 158 of the Indian Companies Act, a Bench of this Court held that a petition for winding up is maintainable by a fully paid up share-holder. It was however observed in that decision that the petitioners, who are fully paid up shareholders, have a tangible interest in the surplus assets. 'Parshottam Das v. Official Liquidators Gorakhpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. : AIR193...
T. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. Thulja Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad413; (1952)IMLJ390
1. Under Section 7(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and. Rent Control) Act, a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the -tenant to put the landlord in possession (i) in the case of a residential building, if he requires it for his own occupation and if he is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned.2. The Act does not contain a definition of a residential building. There is however, a definition of "building". "Building" means, "any building or hut or part of building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes".3. The only question in this case is whether the building which is the subject-matter of the application is a residential or a non-residential building. The findings which are material for a determination of this question are as follows: For several years the building was being used for the residence of the petitioner and P. W. 2. Then, it was let to a tenant who was carryin...
A.C. Abdul Gaffoor Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad555
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 3135 Health dated 11-9-1951.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Pra-bhat Touring Talkies. On 2-6-1951 he applied to file Tadpatri Municipality under Section 250 of the Madras District Municipalities Act for permission to instal an oil engine to run the cinema. The second respondent who is the proprietor of Chand Talkies, Tadpatri, had also applied for a similar permission. On 11-7-1951, the Municipal Council, by resolution No. 89, granted permission to the petitioner. Permission to the second respondent was refused. The Government by order dated 11-9-1951, set aside the resolution of the Municipality and directed the Council to grant forthwith its permission to the second respondent. The present application is filed to quash that order.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Government in setting aside the resolution o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »