Chennai Court April 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.
Sri Sri Sri Krishna Chandra Gajapathi Narayana Deo Vs. Pragada Ramamur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad68; (1951)IIMLJ325
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The appeal was beard fully by Panchapagesa Sastri J. who recorded his findings on the several questions of fact which were necessary for disposed of the appeal and the memorandum of objections. He however thought it was desirable that the appeal should be finally disposed of by a Division Bench, because there were conflicting decisions of single Judges of this Court on a question of law which was very material for the disposal of the appeal. The appeal and the memorandum of cross objections have therefore been placed before this Bench for final disposal. Before us counsel very properly did not attack the correctness of the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Judge on a discussion of the relevant evidence relating to them. The arguments were confined to the question of law which arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiff (the appellant) is the Maharajah of Par-lakiniedi. The contesting defendants are lnamdarswho have been held to be entitled to an in...
Putti Hanumayya Vs. Kondaviti Nayudamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1951
Reported in: (1951)2MLJ400
Subba Rao, J.1. The petitioner executed a promissory note, Exhibit A-1, dated 28th June, 1930, in favour of the respondent's father representing the joint family. Subsequent to Exhibit A-1 there was a partition in the family and the suit debt was allotted to the respondent. The petitioner executed another promissory note Exhibit A-3, dated 20th June, 1942, in favour of the respondent alone. Subsequently it was renewed in his favour under Exhibit A-4, dated 19th June, 1945. The suit was filed by the respondent to enforce the promissory note Exhibit A-4. The petitioner, inter alia, raised the plea that he was an agriculturist and that the debt should be scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. The learned Principal Judge of Small Causes scaled down the suit debt but traced it back to Exhibit A-3, the first promissory note executed in favour of the respondent alone. The defendant has preferred the above Revision Petition.2. Explanation III to Section 8 of ...
Appa Naicken Vs. Nagammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad113; (1951)2MLJ397
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The appellant had a sale deed executed in his favour by the respondent on 9-4-1943; but since the respondent did not register it, the appellant was compelled to apply for compulsory registration on 9-8-1943. The Sub Registrar did not register it and on appeal to the District Registrar the order of the Sub Registrar was confirmed. Then a suit was filed under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for directing registration of the document and a decree was passed directing that the document be registered on 8-7-1946. But it transpired that the decree was signed by the presiding officer of the Court only on 18-7-1946. The decree did not fix any time within which the document should be duly presented for registration as mentioned, in Section 77(1) of the Registration Act. The next day after the passing of the decree, an application for copy of the same was filed before the District Munsif and the copy was delivered over to the appellant on 26-7-1946. But the documen...
In Re: Kallumattam Thippaswami Minor by Next Friend and Father Rudrayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad112; (1951)2MLJ171
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application purporting to be under Article 226 of the Constitution at the instance of a minor by his guardian for directions in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from cutting the trees standing on certain survey numbers in a village and from removing the timber from the said lands. In our opinion, Article 226 of the Constitution should not be construed so as to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit and application available to the litigant under the general law of the land. Directions in the nature of a writ of mandamus should not, in our opinion, issue under this Article except to a public a quasi public body or officer which is under an obligation, statutory or otherwise, to do or refrain from doing anything which is likely to interfere with the rights of persons. In this case, it is admitted that ordinarily the remedy of the petitioner would be by way of a suit and an application for injunction in the suit. T...
Panga Narasayya Vs. Gopavaram Gopal Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad394; (1951)IIMLJ609
Subba Rao, J.1. The appellant, who is a debtor, filed an application under Section 19 (A) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act for a declaration of the amount due under the mortgage deed dated 29th July 1936. The appellant executed a mortgage deed dated 29th July 1936 in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs 1500/-carrying interest at 12 per cent per annum. His case is that he had paid towards that mortgage a sum of Rs. 450 on 7th May 1939. He filed a petition before the Debt Conciliation Board, Rajampet, offering to pay the mortgage amount as scaled down under the provisions of the Act. The respondent did not agree for a settlement and therefore the Board gave him a certificate under Section 18(1) of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, According to the appellant, under the mortgage only a sum of Rs. 829-14-0 was due to the respondent. The respondent denied that the petitioner was an agriculturist and also the allegation that the mortgage was not supported by consideration to the e...
The Sree Meenakshi Mills, Ltd., Represented by Its Attorney S.N. Krish ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad974; (1951)IILLJ194Mad; (1951)2MLJ382
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application by Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Mathurai for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Industrial Dispute No. 28 of 1949 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mathurai and to quash the award made therein on 14-4-1950 and for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the State of Madras from enforcing the award passed by the tribunal and approved by it under G. O. No. 1491. By G. O. Ms. No. 5793 Development dated 7-12-1949 the Government made a reference of an industrial dispute which had arisen between the workers and the management of the Meenakshi Mills Ltd., in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to that order to the Industrial Tribunal at Mathurai for adjudication. The annexure contained eight items out of which we are concerned in this application only with two, namely, items 4 and 6 which run as follows:'4. Reinstatement of Sri V. Srinivasan, Secretary of the Meenakshi Mills Workers' Union, Mathurai, with compensat...
In Re: Dr. A.L. Meganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad996; (1951)IIMLJ195
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted in this case under Section 4(1)(h) of the Madras Prohibition Act, X (10) of 1937. Section 4 (1) (h) is to this effect, viz.,'Whoever bottles any liquor for purposes of sale is liable to punishment under the Act'.In this case what the petitioner is alleged to have done is that under a licence granted to him for sale of liquor as a medical man he obtained a certain quantity of liquor and had it bottled in smaller bottles of two ounces each and kept them in his dispensary ready for sale to persons who might go to him with prescriptions from doctors. It is true that three such bottles are said to have been recovered from his dispensary on a raid conducted by the Prohibition Officer. This transfer of liquor in quantities permitted by the licence, viz. of two ounces from a bigger bottle to smaller bottles is the gravamen of the charge. The Court of first instance relied upon a document, Ex. P-6 which is said to be a proceeding...
In Re: M. Velu Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad107; (1951)2MLJ302
ORDER1. In these batch of cases the point raised is that the petitioners are not dealers but are only commission agents and that the Courts below have proceeded on the basis that the petitioners are dealers and are not commission agents. Section 8, General Sales-tax Act, clear-ly lays the burden on the petitioners to prove that they were commission agents and not dealers. A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below does not disclose that the petitioners have taken care to prove to the satisfaction of the Courts below that they were commission agents and not dealers. When they have not proved according, to the requirements of Section 8, General Sales-tax Act, that they were commission agents, then it cannot be contended that the lower Courts have gone wrong in holding that the petitioners have been merely dealers and applying the law that was then understood to be a correct one.2. I find that the decision in the Public Prosecutor v. Narasimha, Reddi : (1947)2MLJ220 has been referred ...
The Official Assignee, Representing the Estates and Effects of Uma and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1012; (1951)2MLJ93
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. An interesting question of law has been argued at some length with his usual ability and emphasis by Mr. B. V. Viswanatha Aiyar in this case. The question is one of court-fee payable on a plaint transferred from the Original Side of the High Court to the Madras City Civil Court under Section 16 proviso (2) of the Madras City Civil Courts Act. The petitioner was called upon after the transfer to pay the additional court-fee which would have been payable on the plaint, had it been filed even at the inception in the City Civil Court. It is objected for the petitioner that the course adopted by the Court below is not valid.2. The pith and substance of the argument of Mr. Viswanatha Aiyar is that there is no charging section in the City Civil Court Act or in the Court-fees Act which warrants the levy of the additional court-fee. My attention has been drawn by learned counsel to the language of Section 16, proviso (3) of the Act which, it is said, contains no such lang...
A. Poongavana Naicker Vs. S. Muthurama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad762; (1952)2MLJ46
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. In execution of a decree in O. S. No. 13 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, certain properties belonging to the judgment debtor, who had become subsequently insolvent were ordered to be sold by a sale warrant of the sub court dated 27-10-1950 and the Central Nazir of the District Court was authorised to conduct the sale on 1-11-1950 by public auction. Accordingly, the Central Nazir put up the properties for auction and there were bids at that auction. The sale went on for some time and the highest bidder was ascertained on 1-11-1950, It so happened that on that day the Subordinate Judge was on casual leave and on the next day on an application made by the Official Receiver, the Subordinate Judge directed that the sale should be continued from day to day till 6-11-1950. On the same evening the Central Nazir took up the matter before the District Judge who, by an administrative order, held that as the sale conducting officer ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »