Chennai Court August 1951 Judgments
In Re: P.P. Sivarama Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad54; [1952]22CompCas36(Mad); (1952)1MLJ7
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under Section 15(b), of the Madras General Sales-tax Act for not having paid the tax due, viz., a sum of Rs. 643-8-11. In the notice issued he has been asked to pay either in cash or by cheque. The petitioner sent a cheque dated 29th June 1948, drawn on the South India Bank, Mathu-rai. It was drawn in favour of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Mathurai II. It appears to have been cashed by the peon on 21st July 1948 and the money appears to have been misappropriated. The sum was not therefore credited to the account. Since the accounts do not bear evidence of payment by the petitioner, the petitioner was prosecuted. It was found by both the Courts below that the cheque was sent as mentioned above and that it was cashed by the peon of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. There was no question of the cheque not being met without funds being provided for by the party concerned. The only thing that is established ...
Tag this Judgment!Sha Ganraj Poonamchand Vs. V.P. Venkataratnam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad159; (1951)2MLJ531
Ramaswami Gounder, J. 1. This revision is filed against an order passed by the Small Cause Judge, Madras, in appeal against the order of the Rent Controller evicting the present petitioner from the premises. The respondent is the owner of the premises, and he filed the application for eviction on the ground that the petitioner did not pay the rent due for March 1900. The contention of the petitioner was that as usual he had paid the rent for that month also by sending a cheque dated 11-4-1950, and that in the ordinary course it must have reached the landlord. But both the Courts have not accepted, that case and have found that there was a default in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller therefore passed an order of eviction, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal.2. The contention before me is that under the new Section 12-B introduced by the Amendment Act of 1951 which came into force on the 1st May 1951, this Court is given revisional jurisdiction even over the orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakkaju Satyanarayana Vs. Majati Venkatarattamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1044; (1951)2MLJ477
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application for a writ of certiorari is to quash the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali in C. M. A. No. 6 of 1950 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and directing the petitioner before us to be evicted under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The ground on which eviction was ordered was default in payment of rent within the prescribed time. Though the facts make it abundantly clear that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant in the payment of rents, nevertheless, it cannot be said that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that there was a technical default in payment within the time prescribed. His order therefore was on his finding quite proper. But the learned counsel for the petitioner invokes in his aid a new provision inserted by Madras Act VIII of 1951 which amended the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. Under Section 9 of this Amending Act (VIII of 1981) the following proviso...
Tag this Judgment!M. Delli Gramani and anr. Vs. C.R. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad769; (1952)2MLJ611
1. The defendants are the appellants. On 30-4-1945 they entered into an agreement with the respondent Ex. P. 4 for the sale of a cocoanut thope for the price of Rs. two lakhs. An advance of Rs. 25000 was paid on that date. The respondent made further payments towards the sale price and got into possession of the properties on 14-7-1945: vide Exs. D. 1 and D. 2. The transaction itself was completed by the execution of a sale deed Ex. P. 15 by the appellants on 20-7-19-15. On 2-9-1946 the respondent sent a notice, Ex. P. 16, wherein he complained that the extant of the property given in the sale deed was not correct, that there was a deficiency of about 21 grounds and that the appellants should pay Rs. 32500 by way of compensation.2. The appellants sent a reply, Ex. p. 17, on 12-10-1946. They stated that what was sold was a cocoanut thope within well-defined boundaries, that the extent of the properties was immaterial and that the purchaser was not entitled to any compensation. Thereupon...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mariyala Venkateswara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad72; (1952)IMLJ14
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This is a petition by one Miriyala Venkateswara Rao against his conviction, under Section 15 (c) of the Madras General Sales tax Act, by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Gannavaram at Vijayawada, and sentence of fine of Rs. 50, for alleged prevention or obstruction of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Nuzvid, from checking his registers and goods under Section 14 (2) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act. 2. The facts are briefly these: On 13-1-1950, a Friday and admittedly a shop-closing day for the petitioner's shop, under the Shops and Establishments Act, the petitioner was said to have sold a shawl (not controlled article) for Rs. 22-5-6 to P. W. 4 and refused to give him a bill. Thereupon, at the instigation of P. W. 2, an enemy of the petitioner, P. W. 4 gave a report,. Ex. P-l, to the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Nuzvid. On receipt of the report, P. W. 1 went to the shop of the petitioner at about 2-30 p.m. 'that very day' with a view ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.M. Srinivasan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Ar. Rm. Ar. Arunachalam Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad288; (1952)IIMLJ66
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Bell J. decreeing O. S. No. 124 of 1944. The plaintiff is a Nattukottai Chettiar carrying on banking business. The defendants are members of a joint family called A. M. M. family. One Meyyappa Chettiar was the manager of the joint family at the relevant period. Prom 1-11-1939 to 3-3-1941 he, as manager of the joint family, borrowed various amounts from the plaintiff's firm. He died on 21-10-1942. The family has thereafter continued joint and the defendants are the members of that family. The suit is to recover the amounts due on account of these borrowings. The suit was originally laid only against the first defendant on the footing that he was the manager of the family. But he pleaded that he was not the manager of the Joint family and an application was thereafter made for impleading the second defendant as the manager and other members of the family. The second defendant has appeared and has contested the suit along w...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Kuttalalingam Pillai Vs. S.V.N. Chinnakannu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad18; (1951)2MLJ588
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin dated 9-12-1950, in E. P. No. 130 of 1950, in S. C. S. No. 408 of 1949, directing arrest of the petitioner for recovering about Rs. 1000 due from him. The learned Subordinate Judge passed an order on 28-9-1950, as follows:'P. W. 1. Examined. Ex. A. 1 marked. For payment by 10-11-1950 without deciding about the liability (evidently for arrest)'. On 10th November 1950, the judgment-debtor was absent, and the matter was adjourned to 20th November 1950, and then to 24th November 1950, when we find the note, 'Rs. 50 paid. Balance to be paid by 9-12-1950'. On 9th December 1950; the only order is: 'Judgment-debtor absent. Arrest by 9-1-1951.' 2. The judgment-debtor's vakil is said to have been present in Court. The learned Sub-Judge gave 'no reason whatever' for ordering arrest. Nor did he 'decide about the liability for arrest' under Section 51, C. P. C. as he was bound to do and as he ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kondiddasu Appalaswamy, Detenue
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad157
Mack, J.1. Petitioner, Kondidasu Appalaswami was arrested on 2-8-1951, i.e., rather more than three weeks ago and detained for action prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community under Section 3 (1), (a), (iii) of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950, The grounds of detention were served on him on 4-8-1951. We are precluded from going into the truth or the adequacy of the grounds. It is sufficient to say that they constitute a grave indictment of the petitioner, who is said to have organized black-marketing activities in rice to an alarming extent in the course of which he is estimated to have made illegal profits amounting to about five lakhs of a subterranean nature not brought into his regular accounts and registers, on which no income-tax has of course been paid.2. The petition is supported by ah affidavit by petitioner's brother's son Surya Rao according to which he and his uncle are the proprietors of the Sri Ganeswara Rice and Oil Mills at P...
Tag this Judgment!Konithala Chinna Subba Naidu Vs. Chandra Kuppa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad179; (1951)IIMLJ585
Govinda Menon, J.1. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be supported and has therefore to be set aside. The appellant was adjudicated insolvent in I. P. No. 9 of 1932 on 10-3-1933 and his properties of which the subject-matter of the suit formed a part, vested in the Official Receiver on 6-3-1934. The Official Receiver sold these properties to a third party on 2-5-1935 but as a result of proceedings about which it is unnecessary to discuss in the present context, that sale was set aside and the properties became revested in the Official Receiver. On 4-9-1935 the Official Receiver wrote to the Insolvency Court requesting that the order of adjudication should be annulled because the insolvent had taken no steps to get the order of discharge. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order annulling the adjudication in the following terms on 12-9-1935.'The insolvent is absent. His advocate has no instructions. The adjudication order is annulled.'At the time this order was made, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuru Sambiah and ors. Vs. Annapareddi Venkatareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad168; (1952)IMLJ632
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are four allied cases where the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla has directed a court-fee to be paid 'ad valorem', on a valuation of Rs. 15,000 in the three suits covered by the civil revision petitions Nos. 414 to 416, and of Rs. 9,000 ill the suit covered by C. R. P. No. 456 of 1950, for recovery of possession of the lands in which the 'archakas' claimed occupancy rights and from which they claimed to have been 'illegally ejected' by the orders of the District Court, Guntur, in O. Ps. filed under Section 78, Hindu Religious Endowments Act by the trustees of the temples acting under instructions from the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. In some suits there are other reliefs also claimed like accounting, mesne profits, etc., for which separate court-fee-has been paid and about which there is no dispute before me. The only dispute is regarding the mode of valuation for 'recovery of possession' of these alleged occupancy lands after the 'areha-kas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »