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.
The Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. Gadi Satyanarayanamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1951
Reported in: (1951)2MLJ301
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This is an appeal against an acquittal. The offence complained of is under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act. The offence was committed on the 8th September, 1949, but the complaint was filed on the 8th December, 1949. The accused pleaded that the complaint was out of time by virtue of Section 19 of the Act, and the lower Court agreed with this contention and acquitted the accused. The question for consideration is whether the day of the commission of the offence is to be excluded or included for purposes of calculating the period of three months indicated in Section 19 of the Act. The words used are that no prosecution shall be launched after the expiry of three months after the commission of the offence. On proper construction of the wording of the section, I am of the opinion that the complaint is not out of time. The significance of the word 'after' occurring in the section could not be lost sight of when the section has to be construed. But I qui...
T.G. Gopal Pillai Vs. Viswanatha Iyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad23; (1951)1MLJ637
ORDERPanchapagesa Sastri, J.1. Mr. N. R. Govindachari, learned advocate for the petitioner argues that the court-fee paid is sufficient and the lower appellate Court was not justified in calling upon his client to pay extra court-fee. The suit by the plaintiff, the appellant in the lower appellate Court, was for possession and there was an alternative prayer for redemption of a mortgage. The lower Court passed a decree that he was entitled to possession, but that he was bound to redeem a pre-existing mortgage on the property and found that the amount payable was somewhere about Rs. 18000. The decree therefore was conditional on his payment of Rs. 18000 and odd. It is against this that this appeal was filed. He paid court-fee on the basis of a suit for possession valuing the properties at Rs. 3000 and with regard to the alternative prayer for right of redemption he valued at 1/3 of the principal amount due which came to about Rs. 1600. He paid court-fee on the higher figure. The lower a...
Avalath Kunhikoya Thangal and anr. Vs. Dappoyil Ahmad Kutty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad59; (1951)2MLJ496
Balakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. In O. S. No. 1193 of 1944 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Calicut, there was a decree for the redemption of a 'kanom.' Subsequent to the decree the 'Kanamdar' who continued in possession, cut down certain teak trees standing on the property and sold them to Kunhikoya Thangal and Imbichikoya Thangal. When the trees were in transit, the decree-holder applied to the Court and the logs were seized by an officer of the Court. The two Thangals who had purchased the trees then preferred a claim petition under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil P. C. Their claim was allowed by the District Munsiff. The decree-holder thereon filed an appeal in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Calicut. A preliminary objection was taken before him that the appeal was not competent and that the decree-holder, if he felt aggrieved by the order of the learned District Munsiff, should file a separate suit. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objection, held that an apeal l...
Tavanur Manakkal Raman Nambudiri Vs. Chenni Veettil Karthiya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad176; (1951)2MLJ527
Raghava Rao, J.1. These two appeals which are against orders of remand raise a common question for determination, and that is the construction of a certain document, Ex. A. 1, a panayam kychit, as it is called, dated 25th May 1923. The suit out of which these appeals arise was one for redemption on the footing that the document constituted a usufructuary mortgage. It was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the transaction was in the nature of a kanam. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed on appeal with the result that an application for renewal of the kanam which had been rejected by the trial Court was ordered by the lower appellate Court.2. There has been much argument advanced on both sides on this question of the construction of the document, but I think that if certain broad considerations of perspective are borne in mind the construction is not by any means one of difficulty.3. That there was a prior kanam on the expiry of which the suit document came i...
V. Kalyanasundaram Pillai Vs. R.M.L.S. Chockalingam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad293; (1951)2MLJ459
Govinda Menon, J.1. Ex. B. 2 is an indenture between the Governor-General-in-Council and the appellant herein by which the appellant has been made the lessee of certain salt pans in Tirunelveli district. For the purpose of procuring the lease as well as the payment of the rents due, the appellant borrowed large sums of money from the respondent, as a result of which the respondent filed O. S. No. 42 of 1947 on the file, of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tuticorin for the recovery of Rs. 1,08,229-8-8, with interest etc., from the appellant personally and by enforcement of a charge on ail the salt manufactured and gathered in the salt pans. On the 24th June 1949 a compromise decree was passed which provided the payment of the decree amount which was settled at Rs. 90,000, by various instalments. Paragraph 4 stated that if there be any default in respect of payment of even one instalment as described in paragraph 1 of the compromise decree, the plaintiff (respondent) shall automatically...
Boggrapu Venkatasubbiah and anr. Vs. Chenchupalli Peeriah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad266; (1951)IIMLJ269
Panchapagesa Sastry, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit Instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that certain sales in execution of an award by a Cooperative Society are invalid. The award was passed in 1931. Some amounts were realised through the agency of the Collector in 1934 and an execution application was filed in 1936. There were sales of certain properties which on objection was set aside. There was a direction for resale of the items already brought to sale and also two other items being mortgaged properties which were originally not brought to sale. These items were again put up for sale in 1934. The sales were confirmed by the Department and the objections filed by the judgment-debtor were disallowed. He took the matter to the higher officials. That was also dismissed. Finally he brought the present suit. The lower appellate Court has now found that there were certain irregularities in the conduct of the sale and there has been an injury caused to the plaintiff beca...
R.G.N. Price, Official Liquidator, Andhra Paper Mills Company Limited, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad58; [1951]21CompCas249(Mad); (1951)IIMLJ499
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. It is very unfortunate that the learned Judge should have embarked on considerations which, in our opinion, are not germane to the disposal of the application made by the Official Liquidator under Section 179(1) of the Indian Companies Act for leave to file a suit. We agree with the learned Judge that the said provision in the Indian Companies Act was intended to prevent frivolous and wasteful litigation by an Official Liquidator. At the same time, it is obvious that the Court, when approached by the Official Liquidator for sanction to institute a suit cannot decide on the merits of the case. No doubt in one part of the judgment, the learned Judge definitely refrained from dealing with the strict legal merits of the claim, but later on he expressed a definite opinion that he should not allow the suit to be filed to recover a large sum of interest on the basis of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act in the absence of a specific agreement to pay interest. It loo...
Chodipalli Masenu Vs. Gampala Narasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad169; (1951)1MLJ456
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the owner of a boat who was made liable to pay compensation to the respondent under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent's husband, one Somitri, was engaged as a member of the crew of the boat of one Merugu Masenu. This Merugu Masenu, entered into a contract dated 26-3-1948, with Chodi-palli Masenu, the owner of the boat whereunder it was agreed that in consideration of Merugu Masenu paying to the owner of the boat a sum of Rs. 600 as hire, the boat No. 141 should be allowed to carry 500 bales of palmyra fibre from Kakinada Port to Tuti-corin which Merugu Masenu agreed to carry on behalf of Krishna Company, Kakinada for hire of Rs. 1,500. Under the terms of the agreement the owner was under no responsibility for the expenses of the trip and the salaries of the crew, etc. He was paid Rs. 300 as advance on the date of the agreement and the balance was agreed to be paid after the boat had reached Tuticorin and the goods were unloaded....
Chandra Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Korrapati Raja Rama Mohana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad579; (1951)IIMLJ264
Subba Rao, J.1. The question to this appeal is a simple but interesting one, namely, whether the amount advanced under a promissory note for the purpose of celebrating a marriage contrary to the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is recoverable. The facts are simple and are not in dispute.2. The plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the first defendant, having married his sister. The second defendant is the mother of the first defendant. The second defendant borrowed a sum of Es. 5000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of celebrating the marriage of the first defendant and executed a promissory note, Ex. A. 1, dated 29th May 1944 in his favour as guardian of her minor son. As the first defendant was described in the promissory note itself as a minor and as the plaintiff was the brother-in-law, it cannot be disputed that he had knowledge of the fact that the money was borrowed for celebrating the marriage in contravention of the pr...
K. Natesa Ayyar Vs. Kothandarama Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1002; (1951)2MLJ92
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The question for determination here is :'What is the value for purposes of jurisdiction in a case where the plaintiff sues for partition on the footing that he is in possessions of the property.'Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act provides :'When the subject-matter of any suit or proceeding is land, a house or a garden, its value shall, for purposes of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act, be fixed in the manner provided by the Court-Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, Clause 5.'On a first look at this section one is tempted to say that the subject-matter of a suit for partition consists of the land, house or garden in relation to which the action has been brought and the partition of which is asked for. Such a view would be a legitimate view and would follow from a 'prima facie' reading of Section 14. A difficulty however is created by the view which this Court has taken of the provisions of Article 17 (B) of schedule 2 to the Court-Fees Act. That Article r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »