Chennai Court July 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.
V.M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar Vs. Rahman Baig and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad173; (1952)1MLJ61
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiprari and for quashing the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore made in appeal against the order of the Kent Controller, Vellore.2. The petitioner is the owner of the building. He rented it out to the respondent on a monthly rental of Rs. 16-8-0 in the year 1944, and he had taken an advance of Rs 33. For the month of March 1949 the tenant did not pay the rent before the last day of April, but on 31st May 1949 he sent a sum of Rs. 33 towards the rent for those two months. The petitioner filed the application before the Rent Controller for evicting the respondent on the ground amongst others that he did not pay the rent for the month of March before the end of April. Among other contentions the respondent raised the plea that the petitioner consented to certain alterations to the house to be made by the respondent by spending the money from and out of the rent payable by him, and that pursuant to that arrangement...
Uddi Rajamma Vs. Poornappagari Padmavatamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1047; (1951)2MLJ487
1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a judgment of Panchapakesa Ayyar J. in S. A. No. 866 of 1946, leave to appeal having been granted by the learned Judge. 2. One Narasamma died in 1902 possessed of considerable property leaving her surviving two daughters Padmavatamma and Rajamma. Padmavatamma brought a suit O. S. No. 245 of 1942 in the Court of the District Munsif of Penukonda for recovery of the property of Narasamma after ejecting her step-brother and his alienee who were in possession of the property and who were made defendants 1 and 2. The other daughter Rajamma was the third defendant. Padmavatamma claimedexclusive title to the property on the ground that her sister was married into a rich family, while her husband's family was poor and under the law her sister (the third defendant) was excluded from inheriting her mother's stridhanam as the plaintiff was, as between the two sisters, unprovided. We are not concerned with the several defences raised by the defendant...
V. Venkatanarayana Rao Vs. Champalal Savansukha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad126; (1951)2MLJ530
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The appellant filed an application purporting to be Under Section 19-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act as amended by Madras Act XXIII of 1948 for the determination of the debt due by him. Admittedly on the material date the appellant would not be an agriculturist within the meaning of the definition in Section 3(ii) of the Act read with provisos (B) and (C). It was contended on his behalf before Rajagopalan J. on the Original Side that nevertheless the appellant was entitled to maintain the application because of the insertion to Section 13-A into the Act by the amending Act XXIII of 1948. Section 13-A runs thus 'Where a debt is incurred by a person who would be an agriculturist as defined in Section 3(ii) but for the operation of proviso (B) or proviso (C) to that section, the rate of interest applicable to the debt shall be the rate applicable to it under the law, custom, contract or decree of Court under which the debt arises or the rate applicable to an ...
In Re: Yalpanathan Alias Govindaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad50; (1952)IIMLJ118
Somasundaram, J.1. The petitioners in this case are accused 1 to 3 and 7. They along with 11 others were charge-sheeted by the police but the Magistrate discharged the other 11 accused and convicted the petitioners alone for offences under Sections. 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 26/- on each count.2. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that the lower Court having discharged 11 out of 15 persons charged before it, a charge for rioting against the remaining lour is unsustainable, because for rioting there must beat least five persons. It is true that a charge for rioting cannot be framed against four persona, only. But if the charge is that these petitioners along with others, committed rioting then it would be a proper charge. But on account of the special privilege conferred on the Presidency Magistrates in the City, they need not frame a charge in non-appealable cases, though it be a warrant case, a procedure...
Thirumalaiswamy Mudali Vs. Periasami Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad66; (1951)2MLJ532
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore remanding the case to the trial Court. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the appellant herein for ejecting the respondents from the suit properties which were purchased by him at a Court auction sale on 7-12-1944. A few material facts may usefully be stated here: One Varadarajan filed O.S. No. 71 of 1927 in the Sub Court, Vellore for partition of the family properties and for separate possession of his share against two persons Veerasami and Kaniappan. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court and in appeal against that decree a stay of final decree proceedings was obtained on condition that the judgment debtors should furnish security for a sum of Rs. 12000. In pursuance of that order the judgment-debtors, that is, Kantappan and Veerasami furnished the suit properties as security in addition to a third party security. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed and st...
In Re: M.L. Dalmia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad197; (1951)2MLJ525
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the words 'subject to the provisions of this Act' in Section 9 must be read with Section 7 of the Act and therefore if the workman works for the extra period of 15 minutes mentioned in Section 7, no extra wages need be paid. I am unable to agree with this contention. Section 7 deals only with the time to be taken for serving a waiting customer, if he happens to come to the shop at about the closing time allowed by law. It is an indulgence granted for the advantage of the employer. But Section 9 deals with extra wages to be paid to the workmen when they work for more than 8 hours a day. Undoubtedly for the 15 minutes allowed to the employer to serve a waiting customer if the workman works and if it is beyond the 8 hours of his work then he is certainly entitled to extra wages for that brief period of 15 minutes. Failure to pay for this extra period constitutes an offence. The conviction is th...
Chemmanghat Kunnath Melethil Ramankutty Vaidyar's wife Kunhumalu Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad788; (1952)1MLJ831
Subba Rao, J. 1. The only question that arises in this second appeal is whether the first defendant-appellant is Jiable to pay mesne profits. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The properties described in the schedule annexed to the plaint belong in 'jenm' to Sree Meenak-shisundareswara Swami Devaswom in Puttur Amsom, Palghat taluk. The temple was an ancient one and from its origin it was under the management of Naduvil Edam. The Edam had on various occasions in the past demised the properties on kanoms and also mortgaged them. On 25-3-1929 one Pangi Achan of the Edam executed a possessory mortgage to the first defendant in regard to the suit properties for Rs. 3000 under Ex P. 4. As the Devaswom was mismanaged, on 30-11-1935 the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board framed a scheme and the 1st plaintiff was appointed as executive officer. The second plaintiff is his successor. Defendants 2 to 4 are the members of Naduvil Edam.The temple by its executive officer filed O. S. No...
Marimuthammal and anr. Vs. Thandarayanaicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad258; (1951)2MLJ485
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The only point that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit is barred under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil P.O. The facts that give rise to this question are the following: 2. The plaintiff who purchased two items of property at a Court auction held in execution ofthe decree in O.S. No. 1677 of 1926 on the file of the Salem District Munsiff's Court on a mortgage dated 24-6-1925 brought the suit out of which this second appeal arises for recovering the said two items of property from defendants 2 and 3. But we are now concerned only with Item No. 2 of the property as the respondent has given up his claim to item No. 1 of the suit pvoperty. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the defendants was that the plaintiff's remedy by way of suit is barred by reason of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 95, Civil p. c. Both the Courts below held against the defendants on this question. It looks to me that the decision of the lower appellate Court is correct an...
A. Subbaraya Mudaliar Vs. K. Sundararajan, (Joint Receiver) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad986; (1951)2MLJ353
Rajamannar, C.J.1. Pending a suit on the original side of this Court relating to the estate of one C. Balasundara Mudaliar, deceased, it was found that the only way of raising funds necessary for the discharge of pressing claims on the estate was the sale of one of the items of the estate.There was a suggestion that one of the properties, a printing press, called the B. N. Press might be sold as a going concern. On 11th December 1950 Rajagopalan, J., made an order giving liberty to the parties to the suit to obtain offers for the purchase of the press as a going concern so that the Court might be in a position to decide whether the press should be sold at a public sale or at a sale confined to the parties. Apparently no satisfactory offers were obtained and on 8th January 1951, the learned Judge decided that the press should be sold as a going concern by the Joint Receiver at a public sale. The parties to the suit were given liberty to bid at the sale on the same terms as the other bid...
The Free Press Labour Union, Representing the Workers in the Printing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1951
Reported in: (1951)2MLJ358
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. There are three petitions by the workers' union of Spencer and Company, Limited, Express Newspapers Limited and the Swadesamitran Limited against the State of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Madras to refer the dispute between the workers and the managements to a Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) or 10(2) of the industrial Disputes Act and prohibit under Section 10(3) the lock out of the employees effected by the management.2. The point for determination in all the writs is the same and it is not necessary to recount in detail the facts relating to each of these petitions. It is sufficient if some of the relevant facts are referred to with reference to one of these cases, since the outstanding features in each case are practically common. I would therefore deal with the petition which was argued first that is writ petition No. 41 of 1951, filed by the Spencer Workers' Union.3. Reg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›