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.
Ponnammal Alias Guruvammal and ors. Vs. Kanthammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad552
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. Venkata Reddi and Bapu Reddi yere two brothers. The former died in 1917 leaving two widows of whom only one, viz., the first plaintiff is now surviving. Bapu Reddi died in 1936 leaving behind him two widows who are defendants 1 and 2. Venkata Reddi and Bapu Reddi had a sister named Chinnammal and the 3rd defendant is the son of this Chin-nammal. A few days after Bapu Reddi died defendants 1 and 2 executed a surrender deed of their entire interest in the estate in favour of 3rd defendant. It is alleged in the plaint that the mother of 3rd defendant also joined in the execution of the document. The plaint alleges that the law applicable is the Mitak-shara law as it prevails in Travancore and that according to that system of law on the death of Venkata Reddi and Bapu Reddi their estate vested in all the widows together. The plaint further alleges that the surrender deed executed by defendants 1 and 2 and Chin-nammal is void and of no legal effect whatsoever. ...
Ambika Palayakat Company Vs. N. Kannappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad91; (1951)IIMLJ182
ORDERSatyanarayana Rao, J. 1. I think the view taken by the lower Court regarding the payment of court-fee is correct. The suit was for recovery of the price of goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the defendant claimed damages under two heads: a sum of Rs. 2274-3-0 as damages for breach of warranty, namely, that the goods did not answer the description of the goods in respect of which the contract of sale was entered into; and a sum of Rs. 3000 as damages for loss of reputation. The lower Court held that the defendant was entitled to claim the sum of Rs. 2274-3-0 without paying court-fee as an amount which could be considered in diminution of the price that was claimed, but not the sum of Rs. 3000, and therefore it directed that the defendant should pay court-fee on Rs. 3000 if it intended to prosecute the claim as a set-off. It is contended that this sum of Rs. 3000 is also loss which has directly resulted by the breach of warranty. It is difficult to accept this content...
Aravamuda Aiyangar Vs. V. Santhanakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad184; (1951)2MLJ229
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This revision arises out of a complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent for defamation. The defamatory statement Itself was made by the respondent in an application for transfer of a case filed against him by one Muthukrishna lyer who was a branch postmaster at Utttramerur wherein the respondent was a clerk. In the affidavit filed by the respondent in support of his application for transfer, the respondent stated that the complainant, Aravamuda lyengar, is a rowdi and that he has been enlisted as such in the police records and is also one of the bad elements. He stated also that there was a faction in the village of Uttiramerur and the witnesses were supplied by the petitioner herein for the purpose of giving evidence in the Court against him. He further stated that the Magistrate is well known to the petitioner who arranges functions which the complainant Muthukrishna lyer and the Magistrate attend. The said Aravamuda lyengar is said to b...
Official Assignee of Madras Vs. R. Munuswamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad26
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The Official Assignee of Madras as assignee of the Estate of T. R. Tawker and Sons, insolvents herein, asks for an order that the respondents may be directed to hand over certaindiamonds or pay the value thereof. 2. T. Bhavani Shanker Tawker, one of the insolvents, was adjudicated on 17th January 1925, He obtained permission of the Insolvency Court which was granted to him by order dated 5th Octo-ber 1937, to do business as a jewel-valuer and broker on certain conditions as to keeping of proper accounts and paying monthly allocations to theOfficial Assignee. The Official Assignee was informed by a letter written on behalf of the first respondent, dated 30th June 1950, that T. Bhavani Shankar Tawker, who will be referred to as insolvent, instituted O. S. No. 1219 of 1948 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, against the first respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,965-1-0 being the value of diamonds entrusted by him to the first respondent. The Offici...
Rajamanickam Pillai and ors. Vs. Swaminatha Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad24
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This appeal is against the order of remand made by the learned District Judge of South Arcot directing that the appellants before him should apply under the Indian Arbitration Act to obtain relief under the relevant provisions of that Act relating to the award which was set up by them in the Court of first instance. The suit itself was by the uncle of the present first appellant for possession of the suit properties as belonging to him under a certain sale deed executed by the mother of the present first appellant, the 5th defendant in the suit. The defence to the action was that the sale deed by the mother of the first appellant was only a nominal and sham one and no rights passed under that to the respondent. An additional written statement was also filed by the present first appellant in which he contended that the suit by the plaintiff was barred and was not competent for the reasons that there was an award between him and the respondent and in the face o...
Mrs. Pattammal Arumugam and ors. Vs. the Chief Presidency Magistrate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad950; (1951)IIMLJ101
Rajamannar, C.J.1. C. M. P. No. 1941 of 1950 : The question for decision in this case falls within a narrow compass. The petitioner is the owner of a printing press. She filed an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras City for declaring herself as the keeper of the press on 18-1-1950 as required under the Press and Registration of Books Act, (xxv [25] of 1867). On or about 13 2 1950 the Chief Presidency Magistrate passed an order purporting to be under Section 3(1) of the Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, XXIII [23] of 1931 calling upon the petitioner to deposit with him within ten days from that date a security of Rs. 1000 either in cash or in Governmentof India securities. The reasons for this order were contained in the preamble which ran thus,'Whereas Mrs. Pattammal Arumugam has this day declared herself before me as the keeper of the 'Nehru Press' at No. 120 Papfr Mills Boad, Perambur, and whereas the said Mrs. Pattammal Arumugam is reported to be a communist ...
Seethalakshmi Achi and ors. Vs. V.T. Veerappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad736; (1952)IMLJ709
1. This appeal by the defendants raises an interesting and difficult question of law, and we have taken time to consider our judgment. The case was ably and elaborately argued by both sides and we are indebted to counsel for the assistance rendered by them.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit to recover Rs. 4900 the balance of principal and Rs. 990-7-6 interest calculated according to the vaddi chit-tai making a total of Rs. 5890-7-6 as balance due under a promissory note, Ex. P. 1 dated 19th October 1939 executed by one Meyyappa Chettiar in favour of V. T. Veerappa Chettiar for Rs. 17,696-8-6. This Meyyappa Chettiar, the executant of the note, is the husband of the first defendant, undivided father of defendants 2 and 3. He carried on money-lending business at Dedaya in Burma under the style of S. M. A. M. S. The plaintiff, the payee under the note, carried on also money-lending business at Rangoon under the style of V. T. Firm. In respect of transactions between the two firms in Burm...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S. Rm. Sathappa Chettiar, P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad70; [1951]20ITR393(Mad); (1951)2MLJ409
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. Under Section 66(1) Income-tax Act, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us the following question : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 75,000 resolved by the respondent from the Somasundaram Mills Ltd., in pursuance of Pars. 5 of the Arbitrator's award, dated 9-7-1918, in full settlement of all his claim for compensation for the use of machinery, was income liable to income-tax?' 2. The assesaee, S. Rm. Sathappa Chettiar, and another one P. S. Sathappa Chettiar, entered into a partnership to erect and establish a spinning mill at Pollaohi. A building was erected, it is stated, at the expense of the assesses, and P. S. Sathappa Chettiar, the other partner, purchased machinery of the value of Sections 79,155 for installing it in the factory which was then under construction. The machinery seems to have been imported by the year 1941. P. 8. Sathappa Chettiar wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›