Chennai Court April 1951 Judgments
In Re: Illuru Lakshmiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad101; (1951)IIMLJ235
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Cr. R. O. Nos. 1379 and 1395/1949. These two revision petitions arise out of C. O. No. 25 of 1948 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoni. The petitioners in Cr. R. O. No. 1379 are the first and second accused in the case and the petitioners in Cr. R. O. No. 1395 are the third and fourth accused in the case. There were nine accused in all in that case and excepting the four accused the rest were acquitted. They were all tried on three charges, the first charge being an attempt to transport millets without a permit from a village called Halaharvi in Beilary District to Kurnool District in violation of the notification mentioned in that charge, The second charge is for the same transport without a permit from the same village which is said to be in Alur taluk to Asparbi village in the same taluk and this is said to be in contravention of the notification mentioned in that charge, The third charge is causing the lorry in which these millets were taken t...
Tag this Judgment!Parol Abu Packer Vs. Pokkyarath Sivasankara Kurup
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad161; (1951)2MLJ175
Govinda Menon, J. 1. It is clear that before the appellant was ordered to be arrested, no notice was given to him and therefore the order of the learned Judge to the effect, viz., 'means proved, arrest by 6th June 1950' cannot be justified in view of the proviso to Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, which lays down that where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, etc. So it is clear that before an order for arrest is made, the Judgment-debtor should be given an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be arrested. The preamble to the District Munsiff's order clearly states that the respondent has been given no notice at all. Such being the case, the order appealed against is unsustainable and has to be set aside. I set aside the orders of the lower Courts and remand R.E.P. No. 112 of 1950 to the trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Srinivasaraghava Aiyangar Vs. M. Narasimha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad292; (1951)2MLJ589
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is a revision petition against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in S. C. S. No. 56 of 1949. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of the rent due to him under a muchilika dated 12th June 1948 executed by the petitioner in his favour. The petitioner executed a usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of the respondent and the mortgagee executed a lease back in his favour. The suit was by the usufructuary mortgagee for recovery of the rent on the basis of the said lease. The petitioner contended in the Court below that under Section 9-A (6) (a) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Act XXIII of 1948) he was only liable to pay interest but not the rent agreed to be paid under the lease deed. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner could avail himself of the said provision only at the time when he would be taking steps to scale down the mortgage debt in its entirety. In the result he gave a decree to t...
Tag this Judgment!The Narasaraopeta Electric Corporation Ltd. by Its Managing Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad979; [1951]21CompCas297(Mad); (1951)1MLJ277
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These two petitions raise the question of the validity of the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1949 (Act XLIII of 1949) (hereinafter called the impugned Act), and they were therefore heard together. In C.M.P. No. 975 of 1951 the petitioner is the Narasaraopeta Electric Corporation Limited by its Managing Director V.V. Sastry and the Company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner in C.M.P. No. 4697 of 1951 is the Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Limited, by its Vice-chairman, Appana Rangarao and this Company was also incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioners in both the petitions obtained licences for the supply of electricity under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The memorandum of association of the two companies authorised each company not only to carry on the business of electricity supply but also several other objects enabling the company to carry on trade or busi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.S. Vijayaraghavalu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad40; (1951)2MLJ486
Rajamannar, C.J.In this case a most extra-ordinary contention has been raised. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of a building. Other portions of the building have been let to other tenants. The concurrent findings of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal are that the petitioner has been the cause of frequent quarrels and has made it impossible for the tenants occupying the other portions of the building to live in the house along with the petitioner. He has therefore been ordered to be evicted under Section 7(2) (iv) of Madras Act XV of 1946. The contention before us on behalf of the petitioner is that under that provision it is only if the tenant is guilty of acts and conduct which are a nuisance to the occupants of buildings other than the building which the tenant is occupying that the tenant can be evicted; but if one tenant Is guilty of similar acts in respect of tenants occupying other portions of the same build-ing, the provision would not apply. We do not a...
Tag this Judgment!The Province of Madras Represented by the Collector of East Godavari, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad273; (1951)2MLJ340
1. All these three appeals raise the same question of law, though the respondents are different. The suits were filed by the respondents plaintiffs against the State of Madras alleging that sales-tax was illegally levied against them and excessive amounts were collected from them as sales-tax. Various defenses were raised in the trial Court of which one was that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The District Munsiff found in favour of the defendant and dismissed all the suits. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to a contrary conclusion and remanded the suits for disposal on merits. Hence these appeals.2. The only question is whether the Madras General Sales-tax Act, 1939, with its subsequent amendments has ousted the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts when a party is alleged to have been aggrieved by the administration of the Act. For this purpose it is necessary to refer to the relevant portions of the Act of which sections 11 and 12 are the...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Ponnu Kudumban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad599; (1951)2MLJ421
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a revision case by the Madras State to revise the orders of the District Magistrate, Turunelveli, dated 16-1-51 and 15-2-51.2. The facts are briefly these. The accused in R.C. No. 4 of 1950 filed a petition before the District Magistrate of Tirunelveli for transferring the 'four approvers' in that case from tlie sub jail Tuticorin to either the sub jail, Kokkarakulam, or to any central jail. R.C. No. 4 of 1950 is a big conspiracy case involving some 97 accused. The main evidence in the case is going to be that of these four approvers. The accused apprehended that if these approvers were lodged in the sub jail, Tuticorin, which is located in the same building as the police station of Tuticorin and is guarded by a police guard, the approvers might be influenced by the police guard or other police officers to give a story unfavourable to the accused and so prayed that the approvers might be removed to the Central Jail beyond all reach of police influe...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. George Williams Alias Victor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1042; (1952)IMLJ801
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The learned Public Prosecutor has put in this petition under Section 497 (5) and 561-A, Cri. P. C., for cancelling the bail granted by me on 16-5-1950 to one George Williams alias Victor, in Crl. M. P. No. 1076 of 1950 on the file of this Court, in Crl. App. No. 387 of 1950 on the ground that he has misconducted himself and rendered himself liable to rearrest and committal to custody by abusing his release on bail by indulging in the same kind of offence during the period of bail. This person had been convicted in S. C. No. 67 of 1949, by the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly division under Section 120(B), Penal Code, read with Section 420, Penal Code, for having conspired with 23 other accused to cheat members of the public by promising to give them two counterfeit five rupee notes for one genuine five rupee note. Of course the genuine notes were taken and the others not given. This accused was held to be the prime mover and ringleader in this huge con...
Tag this Judgment!Punithavalli Ammal Vs. K.P. Chidambara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad165; (1952)2MLJ71
Subba Rao, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of an order passed in execution in B. P. No. 38 of 1947 in O. S. No, 8 of 1942 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore. The appellant obtained a decree in O. S. No. 8 of 1942 on a promissory note executed by the respondent in his favour. The learned subordinate Judge dismissed the suit applying the provisions of the Madras Act 4 of 1938. In appeal, the District Judge of North Arcot confirmed the decree of the first court. The plaintiff preferred the second appeal to the High Court, S. A. No. 116 of 1944. The High Couit held that the Madras Act 4 of 1938 did not affect the claims on promissory notes and decreed the suit on 8th March 1945. The decreeholder filed E. P. No. 38 of 1947 for executing the decree. After the disposal of the second appeal Government issued an ordinance. Ordinance No. 6 of 1945 Provincial Debts Laws (Temporary Validation Ordinance, 1945) whereunder the Act was made expressly appl...
Tag this Judgment!Bomma Mangayya Vs. Kammula Reddayya (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad44; (1951)IIMLJ560
Subba Rao, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of an application filed by the respondents under Section 19-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act as amended by Act XV of 1943 for determination of the amount payable by the respondents to the appellant under a simple mortgage dated 14-11-1932 executed in favour of the appellant. Ex. P. l is the said mortgage deed. It is for a sum of Rs. 2,000 made up of Rs. 1,580-6-0 paid in cash at the time of the execution and the balance Rs. 419-10-0 for the amount due under a prior promissory note, Ex. P. 1 (a). Ex. P. 1 (a) was a renewal of the prior promissory notes the earliest of them being Ex. P. 1 (e), dated 3-7-1926. That promissory note was executed by the respondents in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 500. The learned District Munsiff declared that the amount due by the respondents to the appellant was a sum of Es. 607-7-9 together with interest thereon at 5 per cent per annum from 15-12-1936 up to 22-3-1938 an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »