Chennai Court October 1952 Judgments
Madras Handloom Weavers Provincial Co-operative Society Ltd., Madras V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad514; (1953)IMLJ258
Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiff, whose suit for Rs. 113-6-3 being the value of the shortage of goods, due to him from the defendant, inclusive of proportionate freight charges has been dismissed, is the petitioner, in this civil revision petition, and the only question that arises, as the learned District Munsif has stated, is whether the defendant-railway is liable for the alleged loss occasioned to the plaintiff during the transit. There was a consignment weighing 15 maunds 30 seers of textile material from Madura to Bezwada according to the railway receipt, which is marked in the case Ex. B. 5. The plaintiff as the consignee when he took delivery of the goods at Bezwada found that the quantity was short by 22 seers and he took open delivery of it. The present suit is for the recovery of the price of 22 seers of goods. The lower Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that in the absence of proof that the shortage occurred on account of the misconduct on the part of the railway,...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mathuraman Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad395; (1953)IMLJ142
Govinda Menon, J.1. A question has been referred to us as to whether an appeal lies against an order passed by a single judge of this Court under Section 115, Civil P. C., whereby a reference to an arbitration has been superseded and the suit is directed to be tried. Since the respondent was unrepresented at this stage, we gave notice to the learned Government Pleader who has been heard on the question of maintainability.2. There was a suit for partition in which a reference to arbitration was made. There were three arbitrators, one of whom was nominated by the plaintiff and another by the defendant. After some time when the proceedings were stagnating, the defendant filed an application that since the arbitrator nominated by the plaintiff was not functioning and was non-co-operating with the other arbitrators, the court may be pleased to remove him and appoint another in his stead. The plaintiff also filed an application, but the prayer was that the arbitration should be superseded an...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board Vs. Gangamma an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad950; (1953)2MLJ82
Raghava Rao, J.1. There are three temples situated in Adoni with reference to which a declaration was sought by the respondent before me that they were not temples as defined by Section 9 Sub-clause 12 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act but private institutions for private worship for the benefit of herself and to all the members of the families to which she (P. W. 1) belongs -- the Hyati family as it is described in the records and the court family with which the Hyati family was connected by marital ties. The respondent before me succeeded in her application to the District Court under Section 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act although she had failed before the Hindu Religious Endowments. Board in the enquiry which preceded the petition in the District Court.2. The entire material relevant to the decision of the matter before me lies in a short and narrow compass. The oral evidence given, before the District Court consisted of the petitioner before it as P. W....
Tag this Judgment!Mothey Krishna Rao Vs. Grandhi Anjaneyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad113; [1953]23CompCas90(Mad); (1953)IMLJ781
1. Appellant, Mothey Krishna Rao, is the plaintiff, whose suit for a declaration that 'he is the Secretary and Treasurer of Sri Krishna Jute Mills Ltd. Eluru' has been dismissed with costs by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Eluru. Defendants 1 to 4 were Directors of this company when on 1-7-1950 a meeting of the Board ended in disorder and confusion which necessitated police intervention to restore order. According to the plaint, after the regular business on the agenda had been done, defendants 1 to 4 wanted other matters brought up, which led to this fiasco. After the plaintiff left the room, defendants 1 to 4 passed a resolution co-opting defendant 5 as director, suspending the plaintiff from the post of Secretary and Treasurer and appointing defendant 2 to look after the duties of Secretary and Treasurer temporarily. Plaintiff filed a petition under Section 144, Cri. P. C. in the Stationary Sub-Magistrate's Court and obtained an order in his favour, which was vacated by...
Tag this Judgment!Periasami Gounder Vs. Vellama Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad490; (1953)IMLJ286
Chandra Reddy, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an action brought by the appellant for partition and separate possession of his 2/5th share in an extent of 1 acre 38 cents situated in Idayakottai Zamin, Madurai district. The suit properties originally belonged to two brothers by name Vellama Naicker and Rangappa Naicker. They conveyed their 2/5 share in the family properties by two sale deeds executed in 1927 and 1929 respectively to one Koolayappa Rowther. As the vendee failed to pay the rent due to the land holder, the properties were brought to sale and were purchased by one Mutha Naicker, the manager of the Joint family of which defendants 3 to 9 were members, in 1930 and possession was taken by the auction purchasers after having obtained the necessary sale certificate. In spite of this, Gulam Muhammad, son of the said Koolayappa Rowther, sold them to the plaintiff on 14-8-1943 as if title in this property still inhered in him. On the basis of this sale deed, the present suit...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: C.S. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad422; (1953)IMLJ236
Govinda Menon, J.1. The Charge against the petitioner before the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Erode was that he, between October 1943 and 16-5-1949, at Gobichettipalayam. committed aduitery with one Dr. Suguna Bai, knowing that she is the wife of one Dr. P. V. Ramchandra Reddi, the compiainant, and without the consent of the said Ramchandra Reddi, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 497, I. P. C. He was found guilty of the offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, the learned Additional sessions Judge of Coimbatore confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.2. Mr. Panchapakesa Aiyar J. before whom the revision came on for hearing on 13-3-1951, directed the case to be posted before a Bench of two Judges as according to the learned Judge, Section 497, I. P. C. perpetuates a discrimination solely on ground of sex and as such is repugnant to the provisions of the Indian Constitution, viz., Article 13...
Tag this Judgment!H. Chandanmull and Co. Vs. Mohambal M. Mehta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad561; (1953)IMLJ182
1. The question that is raised in this appeal is whether Section 5, Limitation Act, is applicable to an application filed under the Arbitration Act, to set aside an award. In certain arbitration proceedings to which the appellant was a party an award was pronounced and it was filed on the Original Side of this Court in O.P. No. 66 of 1951. Notice of this petition was served on the appellant on 27-3-1951. Article 158, Limitation Act, provides that an application to set aside as award should be filed within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of filing of the award. The appellant did not file any application to set aside the award with in the time limited by Article158. The High Court was closed for summer recess on 28-4-1951 and on the day of reopening the appellant filed Appln. No. 2355 Of 1951 under Section 5, Limitation Act, for excusing the delay in filing the application to set aside the award. That application was dismissed by Krishnaswami Nayudu J. on the ground that S...
Tag this Judgment!Puthiya Purayil Puthanpurayil UssaIn Vs. Pavayi Kunhiraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad419; (1953)IMLJ132
Govinda Menon, J.1. R. I. A. No. 3041 of 1947 was an application made by one of the parties in O. S. No. 789 of 1944 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kuthuparamba for amendment of the plaint as well as the decree by scoring out. the name of the desom and the old survey number and substituting in their place another desom and a fresh survey number. That application was based on the allegation that there was a mistake made by the parties in the plaint. For some reason or other R. I, A. No. 3041 of 1947 was dismissed without the amendment being allowed. Later on an application R. I. A. No. 645 of 1949 was made to amend the decree and plaint practically for the same reasons as had been alleged in the earlier petition. The District Munsif, on this application allowed the amendment. The third defendant, who was aggrieved by that amendment, instead of filing an appeal against that portion of the amended decree, applied to the lower Court by R. I. A. No. 1091 of 1949 for a re...
Tag this Judgment!Hoode Venkataramanayya Vs. J.M. Lobo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad506; (1953)IMLJ80
Govinda Menon, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge finds as a question of fact that the petitioner paid Rs. 550 to the mother of D.W. 1 only for the sake of continuing1 as shanbhogue and in consideration of D.W. 1 not reverting to that post. On that finding the question is whether the 'kaikagada' suffers from the infirmity mentioned in Section 23, Contract Act as being opposed to public policy. It has been held in -'Swaminatha Aiyer v. Muthusami Pillai', 30 Mad 530(A), that an undertakmg to pay money to a public servant to induce him to retire and thus make way for the appointment of the promisor is practically trafficking in office and as such void under Section 23, Contract Act. Here a sum of money was paid to the mother of the previous sharbhogue in order that the shanbhogue should not revert to the office. The decision in 30 Mad 530(A), applies to the facts of the present case. But Mr. Nambiar contends that this deference was not raised in the reply to the lawyer's notice. Even if t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gopalu Mudali Vs. A. Venkatesu Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad513; (1953)IMLJ147
ORDERMack, J.1. A simple point of court-fee is raised in this civil revision petition. The petitioner is the plaintiff who sued the two defendants for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 126-0-3 and recovery of possession of the land on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant valuing the suit for purposes of court-fee under Section 7, Clause XI (cc), Court-fees Act. The District Munsif upheld the objection taken by the Court-fee examiner that ad valorem court-fee should be paid under Section 7, Clause (v) (d), Court-fees Act.2. Court-fee had to be determined in the first instance on the plaint averments. According to the plaint the original owner of the land was defendant 1 who executed an usufructuary mortgage on it in favour of the plaintiff. A year later the plaintiff leased it back to defendant 1 for one year. The plaint alleged that defendant 1 continued therefore in possession as a tenant holding over, and further more that defendant 2 had purchased the land from defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »