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.
Sengayyan Chettiar Vs. M. Rasu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad863; (1952)IMLJ287
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam made in an appeal against an order of the Rent Controller.2. The petitioner is the landlord. He filed an application No. 47 of 1950 before the Rent Controller for evicting the respondent from a non-residential building on the ground that he required the premises for his own trade. The respondent contended that the application was not bona fide and that the petitioner had another building in which he could carry on his business. The Rent Controller made an order of eviction. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge set aside that order mainly on the ground that there was an agreement between the landlord and tenant for a period of five years within the meaning of the proviso to Section 7(3)(a)(ii) of Madras Act XV of 1946. The agreement alleged was an oral contract of tenancy for a period of five years. The Subordinate Judge finds that there was such an a...
In Re: Bandi Butchaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad61; (1951)2MLJ176
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This is an important case from the point of view of Newspapers' Editors' public criticism of Government officers and their conduct relating to their discharge of their duties, and the propriety of stopping such criticism in newspapers by issuing a multifarious and omnibus order under Section 144, Criminal P. C., and an 'ex parte' order too, when there is no likelihood of a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or of a riot or affray, or of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or of danger to human life, health, or safety, as contemplated in Section 144 itself as a condition precedent for issuing an order under that section. The case has been argued ably, soberly and moderately by Mr. V. Rajagopalachari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and by the learned Advocate General lor the State. To understand the case, it will be necessary to quote the extracts from the annexure to the order under Section 144, Criminal P. C., p...
S.V. Sankaralinga Nadar Vs. P.T.S. Ratnaswami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad389; (1952)1MLJ44
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O.S. No. 35 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mathurai for specific performance of a agreement to sell certain immovable properties by defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and members of a joint family and the 1st defendant is its manager. The 3rd defendant is the mother of defendants 1 and 2. The properties which are the subject-matter of the agreement are two go downs in Mathurai. Under Ex. P. 3 dated 30-6-1937 the defendants had executed a usufructuary mortgage over those properties in favour of one Somasundara Nadar for Rs. 8000/- and a period of ten years was fixed for redemption. On 20-3-1943 the defendants entered into agreement with the plaintiff, Ex. P. 4, which is the subject-matter of the present suit. Under Ex. P. 4 they agreed to sell the two godowns to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 13500/-. A sum of Rs. 750/- was paid as advance. Deducting Rs. 8000/- which had to be paid for th...
V. Ramaswami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. A.R.S.M.S. Sundaresan Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad25; (1951)2MLJ523
Govinda Menon, J. 1. when once it is con-ceded that with respect to Wills executes by Hindu outside the City of Madras it is unnecessary to take out a probate in order that the under the will should be effective, the question Will arise as to whether any order by a Court directing the issue of a probate will necessarily involve compulsory deposit of stamps necessary for the issue of the probate. It is conceded that no probate has been issued on the strength of the will which has been declared valid by the High Court to the extent of the personal properties of the testator and what the Court has done is to direct, that the executors should pay as much of the Court-fee as is necessary on the amount of the legaciesbequeathed under the Will. We are not satisfiedthat the mere fact that the Court has directed theissue of a probate would necessarily involve theduty on the party to deposit the stamps. It maybe that the legatees may settle the matter outsidewithout getting a probate. To take an...
A. Vedachala Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad276; (1951)2MLJ411
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for issuing a writ of 'certiorari' to quash the order of the Government of Madras dated 5-7-1951. The petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Gandhibam Bus Service, Chingleput. He was granted two stage carriage permits for running two buses on the route from Vanangupet to Madras. One of the two buses MDH. 1144 starts from Madras and the other from Vanangupet every morning at 7 a.m. The schedule of timings in respect of two buses was fixed some years ago and the said schedule has been in existence for over six years. The 2nd respondent is the owner of bus MDH. 1166 running between Vanangupet add Madurantakam as shuttle service with six singles. Timings for this bus also were fixed some years ago. He was starting his bus service at Vanangupet at 8-5 a.m. He moved the Regional Transport Authority, Chingleput for the revision of timings for his bus. The Regional Transport Authority by its order No. 2505/B-1/50 dated 21-7-1950 fixed the timings for h...
In Re: N. Swaminatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad727
ORDER1. These are petitions by the accused in what is known as the Hanuman Bank Conspiracy case to quash no less than 67 charges framed against them by the Special Magistrate, Tanjore, on grounds of misloinder some, of the accused also contending that there were no prima facie grounds to justify any charge against them.2. The actual trial of this case commenced in November 1948, two years and nine months ago, in the course of which over 6000 exhibits were filed and 203 witnesses examined.* * * * *3. A few facts about the Bank and the personnel of the accused may be set out before we come to the most regrettable history of the trial of this case. The Hanuman Bank was incorporated in Tanjore in 1933 in a small way with an authorised capital of only Rs. 20,000 which was increased to Rs. 5 lakhs in 1943 and to Rs. 7 lakhs in 1946 as shown in the balance sheets. At the time the Bank crashed in 1947 it had 20 branches, 16 in Tanjore district and one each at Madras, Chidambaram, Tiruchira-pal...
Nune Panduranga Rao, Minor by Next Friend Nune Sivaiah Vs. Divvala Gop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad827; (1952)1MLJ289
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord, and the first respondent is the tenant. The petitioner filed R. C. P. No. 56 of 1949 for evicting his tenant under Section 7(4) of Madras Act XXV of 1949. The application for eviction was based upon two grounds: (1) that the tenant was committing nuisance, and (2) that he made a default in payment of rent from February 1948. The tenant filed an application a few days prior to the application filed by the petitioner, for fixing the fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent and also held that the said rate should come into force from 11-3-1947. As the excess rent paid by the tenant on the basis of the pre-existing rate of rent fixed by the Rent Controller would be much more than the rent actually due to him, the Rent Controller dismissed the application for eviction. In appeal the Subordinate Judge also took the same view and dismissed the appeal.2. Mr. Subramanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Re...
Koypathodi MoidIn Kutty (Died) and ors. Vs. A.K. Doraiswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad51; (1951)IIMLJ506
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of the decree in O. S. NO. 6 Of 1936 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode. That was a suit instituted by one Appunni Nayar against the appellant for recovery of amounts due under three promissory notes and it was decreed on 30th March 1936. There were various proceedings in execution of that decree but we are concerned only with the last of them, B. P. No. 71 of 1943. In this execution application the Immovable properties of the judg-ment debtor were attached but before they could be brought to sale the decree-holder died on 20th May 1945. Thereafter on 6th June 1945 the following order was passed in E. P. No. 11 of 1943:"The decree-holder is reported dead. No sale taken place. Petition closed. No L.R. impleaded".Meantime a suit had been instituted for partition of the properties belonging to the tarwad of the decree-holder, O. S. No. 32 of 1941, on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. In that suit a recei...
Nagu thevar and ors. Vs. Periakaruppa thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad184; (1952)2MLJ117
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.This is certainly not a case for my interfering in revision with the learned Sessions Judge's order setting aside the order of dismissal by the Magistrate. Here a deceit was alleged by the complainant, namely, that he was asked by the accused to admit payment of the consideration before the Sub-Registrar on a promise to pay the consideration at once as soon as the document was registered and that he registered it and made that statement and parted with valuable properties which he would not have done but for such deceit. It is not a mere case where the consideration was promised to be paid later on, but finally not paid. This postponement of payment in this case relates to the payment promised at a panchayat subsequent to the alleged cheating. So the witnesses regarding the alleged cheating ought to have been heard, and it was not a case for dismissal under Section 203, Cr. P.C. as a civil matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the rulings i...
K. Indira Bai Vs. K. Venkata Sivaprasada Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad461; (1953)IMLJ294
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Yahya Ali. J, dismissing a suit brought by the appellant for grant of letters of administration with the will of the deceased K.V. Balakrishnamurthy annexed. She is the widow of the testator. The caveator, the defendant in the suit and the respondent herein is the uterine brother of the deceased. The appellant alleged that her husband Balakrishnamurthi duly executed on 4-8-1947 the will in respect of which letters of administration were sought. He died on 6-8-1947.The defendant pleaded that when the will was executed by him Balakrishnamurthy was not in a sound and disposing state of mind and in any event the will was executed under coercion and undue influence exercised on the testator by his father-in-law, one Dr. G. Venkatarao. In addition to these pleas which are strictly germane to a testamentary suit, the defendant also pleaded that the deceased was an undivided member of a joint family along with the defendant when he executed the Will...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »