Chennai Court October 1952 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.
Vasudeva Kavu Patteri Vs. Mani Naicka and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1952
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1239
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The facts so far as they are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are these : On 11-8-1933 one Shivakava Patteri, the father of the plaintiff, executed along with four others a promissory note for Rs. 3000 in favour of the Canara Bank. For the balance due on this promissory note the Bank filed O. S. No. 427 of 1934 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kasargod; obtained an 'ex parte' decree for its. 1869-4-10 on 7-9-1934; and realised a sum of Rs. 350 in R. E. P. No. 1564 of 1934. The boobs of the bank show that on 30-7-1935 a sum of Rs. 1637-13-6 being the balance due under the decree on that date was received from Mana Naicka, the first defendant in this suit, Ex. D. 75. On the same day the bank assigned the decree to him. The first defendant brought himself on record as the assignee decree-holder and after several unsuccessful attempts to realise the decree amount in R, E. P. Nos. 1410 of 1936, 584 of 1938, 1186 of 1938 and 172 of ...
State of Madras, Represented by Revenue Secretary Vs. North Madras Fir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad591; (1953)IMLJ66
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The State of Madras is the appellant before us. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents, a registered firm carrying on business in firewood, for a declaration that the demand from and levy of sales-tax on' them by the State for the period ending 31-3-1945 were illegal and' unjustified and for a refund of the amount of such sales-tax paid by them. The learned Additional City Civil Judge decreed the suit, holding that the demand and levy were illegal.2. The facts necessary for a disposal of this appeal may be stated briefly as the scope of the controversy in the suit lies within a narrow compass. In or about December 1943, there was acute scarcity of firewood in the City and the Government were anxious to introduce in the City a system of rationing of firewood. For this purpose it was necessary to provide for a regular and satisfactory supply of firewood. The respondent-firm, who were engaged in firewood business, submitted to the Government that the...
Polavarapu Venkataswami Vs. Nalluri Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad529; (1953)IMLJ242
Kbishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The defendant is the appellant and the appeal is against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bapatla in O. S. No. 30 of 1947, the decree being for damages for breach of covenant of title and quiet possession. 2 Acres 84 cents of dry lands originally belonged to one Jalambhotlu, who leased it to the plaintiff's father for a period of 25 years under Ex. A-1 dated 4-10-1921 on an annual rental of Rs. 76 subject to a payment of quit rent out of the maktha amounting to Rs. 2-6-6. The property owned by Jalambhotlu was of the extent of 3 acres and odd. After the death of Jalambhotlu his widow Sitaramamma, who acquired absolute rights to the property under a will left by her husband, conveyed 2 acres 84 cents out of the 3 acres and odd owned by Jalambhotlu to the defendant under a sale deed, Ex. B-2 dated 24-6-1032 for a consideration of Rs. 1250. The property was already subject to an attachment before the judgment in O. S. No. 170 of 1932, a suit institut...
K. Tirupathi Mudali Vs. T. Lakshmana Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad545; (1953)IMLJ123
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the 1st defendant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chingreput who reversed the decision of the trial Court dismissing the suit brought by the respondents for a declaration of their title to the suit property and for the recovery of possession thereof. The facts material for the purpose of this enquiry are as follows: One Damodara Mudali executed a sale deed, Ex. P. 1, in favour of the appellant conveying his divided half share in the suit house for a stated consideration of Rs. 600 on 9-6-1935 and had it registered on 3-10-1935. The vendor took the same property on lease from the vendee evidenced by the original of Ex. D. 1 dated 3-10-1935. A creditor of Damodara attached the suit house in execution of a decree which he obtained against him. The first defendant in the present suit intervened with a claim petition but his claim was disallowed on the ground that the sale was effected with a view to defraud the ...
Nalabala Chalamiah Vs. Nalabala Rubiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad464; (1952)2MLJ944
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an application by a defendant in whose favour an 'ex parte' decree has been set aside on condition that the costs of the suit are deposited before 1-10-1951. Mr. T. S. Narasinga Rao argues that condition imposed is too onerous especially in view of the finding of the learned Judge that the defendant had sufficient grounds for not appearing on the date on which the suit was disposed of. Even so O. 9, Rule 13 gives ample discretion to the Court in setting aside an 'ex parte' decree to impose such reasonable terms as the Court deems fit. I cannot say that the direction to deposit the costs of the suit is unreasonable or punitive. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed with costs.2. As a matter of grace the time granted to the petitioner to deposit the costs is extended till 15-11-1952. If that is done the 'ex parte' decree will be set aside and the suit tried on the merits. In default the 'ex parte' decree will stand confirmed....
B.N. Viswanathan and Anr. vs. Tiffin's Baryt Asbestos and Paints Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad520; [1953]23CompCas29(Mad); (1953)IMLJ346
1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is the validity of the election of the respondents as directors of a company called "Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos and Paints Limited", at a meeting of the general body held on 26-2-1051. The facts are not in dispute. The company was incorporated in 1945 and its first directors were five persons named in Article 49. One Veeramani was co-opted as a director and the strength of the directorate was thus raised to six. At the first annual meeting which was held on 24-6-1946 all the directors retired as provided in Article 53 and were re-elected. Before the next general body meeting which was held on 27-8-1947 three of the directors had resigned and a fourth resigned at that meeting with the result that the strength of the directorate became reduced to two. The next general body meeting was held on 30-12-1948 and thereafter no annual meeting was called. It was in this state of affairs that one of the shareholders Mrs. Ananthalakshmi A...
S.V. Ganapathy and Ors. Vs. Tiffin's Barytes, Asbestos and Paints Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad556; [1953]23CompCas66(Mad); (1953)IMLJ484
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for mandamus, Appln. No. 1471 of 1951 filed by the appellants under Section 45, Specific Relief Act. The first respondent is a company called 'The Tiffin's Bary-tes Asbestos and Paints Ltd.'2. The third respondents company are the managing agents and the second respondent is the manager of the third respondent and ex-officio director of the first respondent company, At an annual meeting of the company held on 26-2-1951 the appellants were duly elected directors. This application, Appln. No. 1471 of 1951, was filed by them as such directors for an order directing the respondents to deliver to them all the records, documents, vouchers and other properties of the company in their possession. The respondent contested the application on the ground that the managing agents (respondents three) appointed under the articles of association had not been validly removed from their office and that, therefore, they were the persons ent...
Rajaratna Vadugunatha Pillai Vs. Srinivasa Raghava Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad592; (1953)IMLJ74
Govinda Menon, J.1. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing court-fee to be paid on the several alienations separately is correct. This is a case where the fourth defendant as guardian of the plaintiff when he was a minor alienated minor's properties in favour of various defendants at various times and places. It cannot be said that the cause of action as against all the defendants is the same. But it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the subject is the same and therefore Section 17, Court-fees Act would not be applicable. What that section says is that where a suit embraces two or more distinct subjects court-fee has to be paid separately on the value of each subject and not on the aggregate value of all the reliefs. There is no doubt that each of the alienations is a different subject and court-fee has to be paid on them separately. The learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon two decisions of this Court in -- Parameswara Pattar, in re', AIR 1930 Mad 8...
Express Estates Ltd. Vs. Modern Furnishing House
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad414; (1953)IMLJ22
1. This is an appeal against an order of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. passed on 17-7-1951 by which he disposed of 4 applications in C. S. No. 419 of 1917 on the Original Side of this Court. Though there were four applications before Krishnaswami Nayudu J., the appeal relates only to one of the applications in which the respondent is the only party interested.2. Tile facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: Premises Nos. 177 to 179, Mount Road, Madras, were originally leased to Bosotto Brothers Ltd. by the then owners of the building, Jamal Mahomed. On 22-5-1946, the Express Estates Ltd., the appellant before us, purchased the premises. By an order dated 13-6-1947, the Government exempted the building from the operation of the Madras Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1946. On 26-9-1947, the appellant filed a suit, C. S. No. 419 of 1947 on the Original Side of this Court, for recovery of possession from Bosotto Brothers Ltd. and also for the recovery of rent at an enhan...
Sri P.M. Ratna Sabhapathi Rao and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad510; (1953)IMLJ252
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This petition relates to the Municipal Council, Guntur and is taken out by twelve persons stated to be the members of that Municipality for calling for the records and for quashing the notification issued by the Government in G. O. No. 1298, Local Administration dated 1-7-1952. In 1949 the strength of the Municipal Council, Guntur, was fixed at 32 and as the census of 1951 disclosed an increase in the population, the strength of the Council had to be increased to 36 in view of the provisions of Section 7, District Municipalities Act. This necessitated redivision of the wards into 32. Under Section 43, District Municipalities Act, the Government have to consult the Municipalities concerned before dividing the municipality into wards and doing other things mentioned in that section. Accordingly the Government called for proposals from the Municipality with regard to the division of it into wards and also the wards in which seats if any should be reserved under Su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »