Chennai Court August 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.
R.M. Seshadri Vs. the District Magistrate, Tanjore and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad120; (1951)2MLJ517
Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated 24th August, 1951, of the Madras High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5744 of 1951.Appellant in person.C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the respondent.C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (P.A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the Intervener (Union of India).1954. October 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered byGHULAM HASAN J.-The appellant is the owner of a permanent cinema theatre called Sri Brahannayaki in Tiruthuraipundi, Tanjore District, and held a licence from the District Magistrate, Tanjore, in respect of the same with effect from September 5,1950, to September 4, 1951. The licence is granted for one year at a time and is renewable from year to year. He objected to certain conditions in the licence imposed by the District Magistrate, Tanjore, in pursuance of 2 notifications (G. O. Mis. 1054, Home, ...
Rm. Nl. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver, Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1051; (1951)2MLJ479
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 138 of the Constitution of India and Sections 109 and 110 read with the rules under Order XLV, CIVIL P. c. against the order of this Court in C. M. A. No. 332 of 1945.2. E. P. No. 90 of 1944 in of O. S. 14 of 1926 was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai on the ground that it was barred by limitation and in appeal against that order this Court found that the execution petition wasin time and remanded the same to the Subordinate Judge to take steps in furtherance of execution. The only question that was decided by this Court is one of limitation and in that controversy the view taken was different from that of the Subordinate Judge.3. A preliminary objection was taken that the order that this Court is not a 'final order' within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution of India and therefore even if we are convinced that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court...
Peddadu Ramamurthi Vs. Cherukuvada Venkatasubba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad49; (1951)IIMLJ558
1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Panchapagesa Sastri, J., dismissing an application under Order 44, Rule 1, Civil P. C., for permission to prefer an appeal 'in forma pauperis' against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur in O. S. No. 9 of 1949. The learned Judge dismissed the application because he did not think that the judgment of the Court below was erroneous or unjust so as to justify the grant of leave to file an appeal 'in forma pauperis.'2. The Letters Patent Appeal came on for admission during the vacation before Panchapakesa Aiyar, J., on 30th May 1950. The learned Judge apparently felt a doubt whether a single Judge sitting as one of the Vacation Judges had power to admit a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of another Judge. He therefore directed notice to the Government Pleader and to the respondents presumably on this preliminary point.3. Rule 4 of the Appellate Side rules runs thus:"Notwithstandin...
In Re: Arulanandu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad267; (1951)2MLJ446
1. This is an appeal by 76 accused (alleged to be the residuum of 1,000 rioters) in S. C. Nos. 41 and 42 of 1950 on the file of the Court of Session, West Tanjore division. In these two cases, popularly known as the Nanalur Rioting Case, there were in all 122 accused before the Court of Sessions. The charges against them were as follows:"1. That you, accused 1 to 122, on or about the 14th day of April, 1948, at 'Singamangalam and 'Vadakku Nanalur', were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., preventing the arrest of persons and rescuing of arrested psrsons concerned in the rioting at 'Thuvarankollai Odai,' 'Singamangalam,' on 12th April 1948; and as-saulting and murdering the Police party stationed at 'Vaddakku Nanalur' and wresting by force the rifles of the Police, committed the offence of rioting, that you accused 44, 47 and 49 were armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. A.R. Narayana Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1045; (1952)IMLJ662
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. In Application no. 552 of 1949 in I. P. No. 71 of 1940 Mack J. held that an undischarged insolvent had no borrowing capacity at all and that the Act (the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act) provides no machinery by which any creditor who lends to an undischarged insolvent can recover his debt. He also held that no Court has got any power or jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the insolvent on the basis of a debt incurred by him while an undischarged insolvent. Krishnaswami Nayudu J. in two applications which came up for disposal before him was not inclined to accept this view of Mack J. and in view of the importance of the question raised, he considered it necessary that the applications should be heard and disposed of by a Bench of this Court. This is how those applications come up before us for disposal.2. Mack J. came to the conclusion that an undischarged insolvent had no borrowing capacity at all not on any authority but because he thought that it was the eff...
Panchayat Board, Kudaravalli Gudiwada Taluk, Krishna District Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad175; (1952)1MLJ285
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This application is for quashing the order of the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards dated 20th December 1950 superseding under Section 45-A(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act the Kudaravalli Panchayat Board for a period of one year. On 12th October 1950 the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards issued a notice to the Panchayat Board calling upon them to show cause within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice why the Panchayat Board should not be superseded under Section 45-A (1) of the Madras Local Boards Act. In that notice, the Inspector stated the following reasons for the proposed action: (1) For the year 1949-50, the Panchayat Board realised a large amount from the proceeds of the grass sales but only credited a sum of Rs. 364; (2) No amenity worth the name has been provided by the Panchayat Board and that they have not kept the fresh water tank in a sanitary condition; (3) the Panchayat Board has not 'checked the Presiden...
In Re: P.T. Vadivel Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad299; (1952)IMLJ69
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mathurai, dated 8-4-1950, in C. A. No. 37 of 1950, confirming the conviction of the petitioner, Vadivel Goundar, a manof Travancore, under Section 4 (1) (a) of the MadrasProhibition Act, but setting aside the sentence ofsimple imprisonment for one month and the orderof confiscation of his motor van in which he wascarrying the bag containing the two bottles ofbrandy.2. The facts are briefly these. The petitioner, Vadivel Goundar, is a man of Kottayam, in Travancore-Cochin State, and owns some estates there. He was caught hold of on Gudalur-Cumbum road at 9 p.m., on 28-11-1949, in Indian Union territory, by the Prohibition Inspector of Police, P.W. 1, and his staff, and two bottles of brandy were recovered from a bag kept on the rear set near him by the petitioner who gave a statement to the Prohibition Inspector stating that he was taking those brandy bottles for being given as medicine to his...
V. Natesa Pillai Vs. Central Road Traffic Board, Egmore, Madras, Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad39; (1951)2MLJ406
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, dated the 16th March 1950 and of the Government of Madras, dated the 14th October 1950.2. Sri Rama Vilas Service Limited, Kumbako-nam, surrendered four permits in respect of route Pudukottai-Tanjore. The Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchlrapalli, called for applications to fill' up the four vacancies. The petitioner, along with others, applied for permits. The petitioner filed three applications, one for a permit to run a bus between Puddkottai and Tanjore, and two other applications for the variation of the existing route, Nagarapatti to pudukottai by extending it to Tanjore. The third respondent L. Narayanamurthy and Company, also applied for a permit on 1st December 1949. The Regional Transport Authority passed a resolution granting two permits to the Pudukottai Co-operative Transport Limited, Pudukottai and one permit to the petitioner in var...
C.D. Sekkilar Vs. R. Krishnamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad151; (1951)2MLJ568
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the principal of the Pachiappa's College to readmit the petitioner to the Final Year Economics Honours Class.2. The petitioner was a student of the final year Economics Honours Class in the Pachiappa's College, Madras. In 1949 he had been expelled from the hostel attached to the Pachiappa's College on 24 hours notice. The Principal says that he had to be expelled because of his improper behaviour. The petitioner affirms that he was wrongfully expelled from the hostel because he complained to one of the trustees about the scarcity of water in the bath room and the enhancement of the mess rate. On 19th July 1950, the Principal wrote a letter to the petitioner's father informing him that his son's behaviour had not shown any improvement even at the beginning of the year. He complained to him of a specific instance, namely, that when he was getting up the stair case, the petitioner in the presence of about...
R.S. Venkataswami Naicker Vs. Chinnayapuram Co-operative Stores, Q 271 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad188; (1952)IMLJ8
ORDERBasheere Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He has preferred this petition against the order of the learned District Munsif of Sattur directing him to pay court-fees under Section 7(IV-A) and (IV) (c) of the Court-fees Act. The petitioner's contention is that he is suing only for a declaration, thatthe award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is not valid and binding against him and for injunction which he presses for against the attachment of his property which he is entitled to value according to his own calculations. The learned District Munsif treats the award of the Deputy Registrar on the same footing as a decree of a civil court. He has taken into account the mere fact that the award of the Deputy Registrar is capable of execution as if it was a decree of a civil court or a Revenue Court. He has failed to note that this by itself will not convert the award of the Deputy Registrar into a decree. Even so,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »