Chennai Court March 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.
Chinnasami Alias Samba Goundan Vs. A.L. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad94; (1951)2MLJ374
ORDER1. This is an application by the respondent in Section A. No. 2195 of 1946 to cancel the certificate granted to the appellant on 5th April 1950 under Article 132 of the Constitution of India.2. On a representation made by the appellant in S. A. No. 2195 of 1946, we passed the following order :'In our view the judgment just delivered involves a substantial question of law within the meaning of Article 132 of the Constitution of India. Leave granted'.The respondent did not furnish security for the costs before the 'Supreme Court and d_id not deposit the necessary amount for defraying the expenses of printing etc., of the records. He took out an application in the Supreme Court of India for an order dispensing with the furnishing of the security and the printing deposit, and the same was dismissed by that Court. Mr. Ke-sava Aiyangar appearing for the appellant, con-fended that there is no obligation on his client to furnish security or to make the requisite deposit, as Order XLV of t...
Pusapati Ramabhadra Raju Vs. Ayitha Ramanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad125; (1951)2MLJ389
Balakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. One Ramanna is the first respondent before me. He was in possession of certain lands under a lease. He also claimed that he was entitled to occupancy rights over those lands. Alleging that he had been wrongfully and forcibly dispossessed of the lands by defendants 1 to 3 and others, he filed a suit O. S. No. 310 of 1944 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Vizianagaram to recover possession of the lands under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The District Munsif decreed the suit. Thereupon the lessors filed a suit, O. S. No. 24 of 1945 on the file of the Sub Court Visakha-patnam, praying for a declaration that Ramanna had no occupancy rights in the suit lands and for possession. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the original lessors sold the property to Ramabhadra Raju, the appellant before me and he was subsequently added as a plaintiff in the suit. The Sub Court pronounced its judgment on 30th September 1947, holding that Ramanna had no occupancy...
Chitturi Venkataraju Vs. Kodarasetti Venkataramana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1013; (1951)2MLJ84
Panchapagesa Sastry, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-mortgagee against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada in so far as his claim for compound interest has been disallowed. The suit was on a mortgage for Rs. 3344 repayable in six instalments and carrying interest at the rate of twelve annas per cent per mensem with yearly rests. The first defendant who had purchased the property from its prior owner had undertaken to discharge an earlier mortgage on this very property of the year 1922. The principal sum advanced thereunder was Rs. 2000. That mortgage carried interest at nine per cent per annum compound interest. Out of the consideration for the sale, the first defendant had been directed to discharge the mortgage of 1922. It appears that he made some payments thereunder and ultimately the suit mortgage came to be executed in 1935 for the amount of Rs. 3344. Defendants 2 and 3, the sons of the first defendant, were then minors. The suit is brought in 194...
Chonthan Veetil MoidIn Kutty Musaliar Vs. Vallikat Kunhi Krishnan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad995; (1951)IIMLJ165
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This appeal raises a question under the Malabar Tenancy Act which does not appear to be covered by authority. This is how the matter arises.2. The appellant who was the plaintiff filed a suit under the Malabar Tenancy Act to evict the defendants from certain premises described in the schedule to the plaint. In column 7 of the schedule the property is described as having a perimeter of 24-8 koles. In the next two columns the dimensions of the entire property are given as 7 3/4 by 11 1/2 'carpenter's' koles, that is to say, the property set out in the schedule consists of the house with apparently a little space round it. The defendants countered the plaintiff's demand by claiming that the property was kudiyiruppu and offering to purchase it under Section 33 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. Their claim was upheld and the courts below permitted the defendants to purchase property measuring 7 3/4 by 11 1/2 'six feet' koles. To avoid confusion it may be stated at once tha...
V. Srinivas Vs. the Director of Controlled Commodities, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad775; (1952)2MLJ113
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application is filed by one V. Srinivas who has been doing the business of a Master Weaver according to him for over 10 years. He' was permitted by an order of the Provincial Textile Commissioner to take from three mills certain quantity of yarn per month. In June 1949 he found it difficult to continue his business and so he decided to suspend his business temporarily and intimated his decision to do so to the Collector of Coimbatore in July 1949. In his affidavit he states that in or about March 1950 he decided to resume his business as a weaver and applied to the Director of Controlled Commodities to allocate to him the quota which was being allowed to him. He was eventually informed that this quota had been cancelled. There was an application for review, but the Collector refused to reconsider the case. By this application he seeks to have the order of the Director of Controlled Commodities cancelling his quota quashed and he seeks a direction from this Court...
In Re: A.K. Gopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad41; (1952)2MLJ690
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. On the 22nd February 1951, this Court directed that the petitioner should be set at liberty forthwith and at that time the petitioner was present in court. We reserved judgment in Crl. M. P. No. 153 of 1951 in which that order was made on 19th February 1951. According to a note made by the Bench Clerk, the delivery of our judgment was completed on the 22nd February 1951 at 11-40 a.m. The petitioner then asked us whether he was free to go as the police officers were present in court. We then told him that he was at liberty to go wherever he pleased as he became a free citizen. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of this petition, which is also supported to some extent by the affidavit filed by Mr. V.G. Row, an advocate of this court, who was advising the petitioner in several proceedings before this court and was present in court when Crl. M. P. No. 153 of 1951 was argued and when we pronounced judgment on the 22nd February 1951. The events that tran...
Mepatti Sambayya Vs. the Official Receiver, Guntur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad256; (1951)IIMLJ271
Raghava Rao, J.1. This case is thoroughly unarguable for we petitioner, Mr. Krishna Rao, however, has done his job neatly and fairly. 2. The material facts are these. There was a suit filed by the petitioner before me on 10-9-1948, and an attachment before judgment was then, and there obtained by him. On 2-12-1948 a decree followed and the Court made the attachment absolute. Then there was an execution petition filed on 7-12-1948 against certain money of the judgment-debtor lying to his credit with the I. L. T. D. Company at auntur. The Court on 9-12-1948 made an order in these terms 'send for', apparently a compendious expression which the Court used for what might well have been 'send for the money attached.' On 14-12-1948, five days after the order of the Court just mentioned, there was an insolvency petition presented against the judgment-debtor in this suit by a creditor of his. The question which arises for determination is whether the order of 9-12-1948 has the effect of bringin...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maddi Venkatasubbayya and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1007; [1951]20ITR151(Mad); (1951)2MLJ167
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 7500 was 'agricultural income' within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (b) of the Act and exempt from taxation under Section 4 (3) (viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act.'The facts are briefly these. The assessee, a firm of merchants, purchased a standing crop of tobacco on an area of 93 acres 12 cents for Rs. 13,833 in January 1943 from the person who had raised the tobacco on the land. The tobacco was harvested, cured and sold in the market by the assessee before 21st March 1943, for Rs. 33498. The plucking of the ripe leaves, the pruning and flue curing of the harvested tobacco were all done by the assessee firm. It is also stated that there was some sort of ploughing on the land by assessee. The curing of tobacco is said to be a process which is ordinarily employed by a cultivator of tobacco to render it fit for sale in the mark...
Karunambal Ammal Vs. Chellaya Gurukkal Alias Subramania Appukutti and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad114; (1951)1MLJ395
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question in this civil miscelaneous second appeal and this civil revision petition is whether the earnings of the heirs of a certain gurukkal in a temple which are in the shape of presents by devotees for archakathwam service rendered by them are liable to be attached as assets of the deceased gurukkal in their hands under a decree passed against them with reference to such assets. The Courts below have held that the earnings are not so liable.2. Mr. Ramamurti contends before me that this decision is wrong. His point is that but for the fact that the right of archakathwam service devolved upon the judgment-debtors as heirs of the deceased gurukkal, they would not be entitled to earn the emoluments and that therefore the emoluments should be treated as assets liable to be attached. The fact, however, which this argument overlooks, is that even after the devolution of the archakathwam service by inheritance upon the judgment-debtors, there can be no question of the ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. K.V.K. Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad162; (1951)2MLJ199
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This appeal is by the Madras State against the acquittal of one Ramaswami, the accused in C. C. No. 155 of 1949, by the Sessions Judge off Salem in C. A. No. 174 of 1949, and shows the utility and importance of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in certain cases. This Ramaswami, as the Secretary of the village school building committee, Pattanam, Salem district, has admittedly, been given 2 1/2 tons of M. S. Rounds 5/8' from one S. Kuppuswami Chetti of Madras (P.W. 1's firm), for making certain additions and constructions in an elementary school in Pattanam Village. He agreed, under the permit, that he would utilise the material that was allowed to be purchased by him for the purpose above-mentioned and that he would return the permit to the Director of Industries and Commerce and the Provincial Iron and Steel Controller if the purpose for which it had been issued ceased to exist, and the permit was made valid for 30 days from the date of its issue, namely,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »