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.
S.R. Muthusami Gounder Vs. T. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad533
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. These are two applications taken out by the plaintiff. One is an appeal against the order of the Master refusing leave to amend the plaint and the other is for leave to sue on the basis of the plaint sought to be amended.2. The suit is for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain lands in Salem District entered into at Madras, and for an injunction restraining the second defendant from bringing about a breach of the said contract. Application No. 260 of 1951 was filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint consequent on the plaintiff having been made aware sub-saquent to the suit that the second defendant claimed to be purchaser of the same property under a sale deed executed in his favour on the 28th September 1950. The plaint is, therefore, sought to be amended by stating that the sale is sham and nominal, and, in any event, the second defendant is not a 'bona fide' purchaser for value without notice, and for directing the execut...
Chokkammal and Two ors. Vs. Sambandam Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: (1953)IMLJ71
1. This reference raises a question of some importance which comes up frequently for consideration on the Original Side of the High Court.2. In and by the decree in C. S. No. 423 of 1949, the applicant herein, who is the third plaintiff in the suit, became entitled to a sum of Rs. 3800/10/- out of the entire sum standing to the credit of that suit. He asked for payment out of a sum of Rs. 3,753-2-0 being the balance he was entitled to, after retaining a sum of Rs. 47-8-0 being the cost of stamps for engrossing the decree. On the 20th April 1951, the learned Master passed an order ordering payment out. An order of attachment of the moneys standing to the credit of the applicant in this suit was issued by the Court of Small Causes in execution of a decree obtained by one Krishnamruthi Ayyar against the applicant in Small Cause Suit No. 361 of 1951, and the said order of attachment was received in this Court on 26th April 1951. Attachment was effected by this Court, and the original order...
Katta Adinarayana and Brothers Vs. the State of Madras Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad830; (1952)2MLJ27
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 14th May 1951 of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary, dated 9th April 1951 & of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, dated, 2nd March 1951. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the petitioner for sales-tax for the year 1948-49 in a sum of Rs. 2.22,490-2-9. He filed an appeal against that order to the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary, but that appeal was dismissed, on 9th April 1951. When he filed a petition to the Board of Revenue that was rejected on 14th May 1951. The petitioner seeks to set aside those orders on the ground that they are illegal and contravene the provisions of the Act.2. The learned Government Pleader raised the preliminary objection that the petitioner has other adequate and effective remedy by way of filing a suit in a civil court and therefore this application should be dismissed. In -- 'the Province of Madras v. Satyanarayanamurthi', ...
In Re: Krishnan Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad400; (1952)1MLJ623
Mack, J.1. Appellant aged 19, the son of Rangappa Naicker, has been found guilty under Section 302, I.F.C., of the murder of a young woman Chittliammal aged about 16 and sentenced to death.2. The facts of this case are remarkablc. The police originally laid a charge-sheet against the father Bangappa Naicker as A. 1 and the son, the present appellant, as A. 2, it would appear, under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The committing Magistrate on some unusual evidence in the case framed a charge of murder only against the son, and a charge under Section 201, I.P.C., read with Section 511, I.P.C., i. e., for attempting to dispose of the murdered corpse against the father. In the Sessions Court, the case was split up into two and the learned Sessions Judge has tried the appellant separately on the charge of murder, it would appear, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court, -- 'In re Narayana Ehatta', I.L.B. (1949) Mad. 220. The trial Court judgment makes no reference at all t...
In Re: V. Nagalingam Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad834; (1952)2MLJ28
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petitioners have been for a long number of years vending various articles on the platforms of the Madhurai junction under permission granted to them originally by the South Indian Railway Company Ltd. They were granted licences and a monthly fee was being collected from them. From the 1st April 1951 the Government have taken over the railway. On the 28th September 1951, a notice was served on the petitioners cancelling the licences issued to them with effect from 1st November 1951. This application is for the issue of directions or orders appropriate to the case regarding the cancellation of these licences.2. It may be that this action on the part of the railway authorities is likely to cause great hardship to the petitioners as they would be thrown out of employment and deprived of the means of earning their livelihood by carrying on this business. But the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to establish any right in the petitioners which wecou...
G. Michael Vs. Mr. S. Venkateswaran, Additional Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad474; (1952)1MLJ239
1. Article 330(1) of the Constitution provides that seats shall be reserved in the House of the People for the Scheduled castes. Article 332(1) similarly provides for the reservation of seats for the Scheduled castes in the Legislative Assembly of every State. The expression "Scheduled castes" is defined in Article 366, Clause 24 as meaning:"Such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be scheduled castes for the purpose of this Constitution."Article 341(1) now runs as follows:"The President may, with respect to any State, or where it is a State specified in Part A or Part B of the First schedule, after consultation with the Governor or Rajpramukh thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled castes in relation to that State."In exercise of the powers conferred...
V. Thanappa Chetty Vs. Arcot Govindaswami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad553; (1952)1MLJ248
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor in C. M. A. No. 41 of 1949.2. The petitioner is the owner of shop No. 7/9 in Bazar Street, Chittoor. The respondent is his tenant and has been carrying on business in pulses in the said shop. In the same street, the petitioner has been carrying on a similar business in another shop. That shop is owned by one Kandappa Chetii and the petitioner is his tenant. Kandappa Chetti filed an application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and' Rent Control) Act, 1949 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for evicting the petitioner. That application was dismissed. Subsequent to the dismissal of that application, the petitioner filed an application under Section 7 of Act XV (15) of 1946 before the Rent Controller, Chittoor for evicting the respondent. The Rent Controller dismissed that application on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent co...
Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad98; (1952)ILLJ364Mad; (1952)2MLJ481
ORDER1. This is an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue such directions, writs or orders as may be deemed appropriate to the case and in particular to call for the records of the proceedings in Industrial Dispute No. 5 of 1951 before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and to quash the award passed therein and the reference on which it is based and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit. The petitioner is the Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation, a partnership firm and the affidavit in support of the application has been filed by one of its partners. The firm carries on 'inter alia' the business of manufacture of brass, copper and aluminium sheets at Mettur. It has also a factory at Tondiarpet in Madras where brass and stainless steel utensils are manufactured. On 3rd February 1951 the management put up a notice as follows:'The factory at Mettur Dam is closed and hence the raw materials for this factory are not corning. Owing to the serious...
P. Thambiran Padayachi and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad756; (1952)2MLJ208
1. These are petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of various notifications issued by the State of Madras under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894, declaring that certain lands were to be acquired for construction of houses. The petitioners are the owners of the lands proposed to be acquired under the notification and their contention is that the purpose mentioned in the declaration is not a public one and that, in consequence, the acquisition is in contravention of Article 31(2) of the Constitution and, therefore, void. In some of the petitions, certain other points have also been raised but we have reserved consideration of these points to a later stage and heard arguments on the constitutional issue as to the validity of the acquisition.2. It will be convenient to take writ petition No. 76 of 1951 for a statement of the material facts, that being the main petition argued and typical of the rest. Within the municipal lim...
Vutukuri Bala Nagamma Vs. Vutukuri Hanumanthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad784; (1952)IMLJ169
Subba Rao, J. 1. This second appeal is against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur confirming that of the District Munsif of Gurzala in O. S. No. 262 of 1945, a suit filed by the managing trustee of Sree Sitaramaswamivaru for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 and subsequent mesne profits.2. Hanumanthu, the plaintiff, Ealayya, the husband of the first defendant, Chinna Palayya and Kanaka Palayya, defendants 2 and 3 are the divided sons of one Veerayya. Defendants . 4 and 5 are the sons-in-law of Veerayya. Defendant 6 is the grandson of Veerayya by his daughter. Veerayya constructed a temple for God Sitaramaswamivaru and executed a will, Ex. P. 1. dated 22-8-1934 endowing certain properties to the temple and also prescribing the machinery for its management. Under that will, his four sons were constituted trustees and his two sons-in-law and the grandson were appointed trus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »