Chennai Court February 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.
Rampalli Ramachandrudu Vs. Sait Bakraj Gulabchand Firm and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad826; (1952)1MLJ398
1. These appeals arise out of the orders passed by the District Judge of East Godavari extending the time for a precept issued to the Court of the District Judge of West Godavari to keep in attachment properties belonging to the appellant who is a judgment-debtor in the suit put of which the application for precept and its extension was made. Mr. P. V. Vallabhacharyulu for the respondent raises a preliminary objection that an order directing a precept is not appealable, as it is not one relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. For this argument he relies upon the observations of Sen J. in -- 'Rai Kissenji v. Sri Kissen', ILR (1939) 2 Cal 370. The learned Judge observes as follows:"After there is an attachment pursuant to a precept under Section 46, C. P. C., further steps have to be taken before the decree can be executed. First, there must be an application under Section 39 of the Code to the Court, which passed the decree, for transmission of the decree to the ...
K.R. Radhakrishna Ayyar and anr. Vs. T.S. Subramania Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad370; (1952)2MLJ198
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 220 of 1946 in the District Munsif Court, Valangiman at Kumbakonam are the appellants in this second appeal. They sold some of their properties to defendant 1 for Rs. 12000 under a sale deed dated 14th October 1921. The properties were at the time subject to a mortgage which the plaintiffs had executed in favour of one Ramadoss Iyer on 4th August 1918 for Rs. 2750. Out of the sale consideration of Rs. 12000 a sum of Rs. 3250 was left with the purchaser, defendant 1 to discharge the amount due under the said mortgage. Defendant 1, however, did not pay any money to the mortgagee forthwith. In or about 1922 the plaintiffs were obliged to pay an amount of Rs. 800 to the mortgagee towards the interest which had accrued due. Subsequently, defendant 1 sold certain of the items which he had purchased from the plaintiff to one Nagammal in 1931 for Rs. 4000 and directed her to pay out of the said amount, Rs. 2500 in part payment of the amount due u...
Union of India (Uoi), Owning the South Indian Railway by the General M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad808; (1952)1MLJ703
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for issuing a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras. 2. The respondents, S.P. Nataraja Sastrigal and S. Padmanabha Rao, were assistant Masters in the South Indian Railway each in charge of Northern area School and Eastern area school respectively, of the Golden Rock colony. They were allowed to draw a duty allowance of Rs. 2 each per mensem. The appointments were made on 5-7-1941. Subsequently their designation was changed to that of head masters. In the year 1950, the Central Pay Commission sanctioned a revised scale 08 pay and allowance to the head masters which was to he given retrospective effect from January 1947. In implementation of the above, the duty allowance of the head masters was raised to Rs. 15 per month. After the revision of the scales of pay, C.S. Krishnamurthy Aiyar and M.G. Venkatarama Aiyar in whose places the respondents were appointed, were posted as hea...
M.K. Ranganathan and ors. Vs. the Madras Electric Tramways (1904) Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad659; (1952)ILLJ772Mad; (1952)2MLJ805
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Bombay. The petitioners who are 46 in number were workmen employed by the Madras Electric Tramways Ltd. On the 17th of February 1950 some of the workers met the Agent of the Company and discussed with him their disputes relating to bonus for the year 1949, reinstatement of 13 discharged men and the cancellation of fine on the motormen. After some discussion they dispersed. On the afternoon of 20th February, a large number of workers gathered near the entrance and passages leading to the Agent's room. The management contended that the adjourned meeting was fixed to take place on the 18th whereas the labourers stated that it was adjourned to 20th. On the 20th, the Agent refused to receive their representatives unless the five representatives who met him on the 18th came again.The labourers insisted upon two of their leaders, Ranganathan and Subramaniam t...
L. Venkataswamy Chetty Vs. V.A. Ganapathia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad465; (1952)1MLJ765
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the order made by the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.M.A. No. 11 of 1949. 2. The facts are: The petitioner before us L. Venkataswami Chetty had dealings with Ganapathi Pillai who has been adjudicated an insolvent and on the foot of the transactions between them he filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Coimbatore. He obtained an order for attachment before judgment and consequently a major portion of the articles mentioned in the inventory filed by Arunagiri Nadar (to whom reference will be made later) on 7-10-1948 had been attached and removed and came to be in the possession of this Venkataswami Chetty. 3. In these circumstances Arunagiri Nadar filed a creditor petition against this Ganapati Pillai alleging that the latter had borrowed on five promissory notes and by means of a cheque a sum of Rs. 17,000/-, that the amount due to the said Arunagiri Nadar as on 30-6-1938 was Rs. 14625-7-3, that there was a...
Poosarla China Appalanarasimhalu Vs. Board of Revenue, Chepauk, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad811; (1952)IMLJ641
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ for directing the Revenue Board of Madras to refer the case to the High Court under Section 57 of Act II (2) of 1899. 2. One Chinna Brahmajee and another PeddaBrahmajee were brothers. The petitioner is theson of Chinna Brahmajee. Parvateesam andSriramamurthi are the sons of Peda BrahmajeeThere was a partition between the twobranches. Lists were prepared and they werereduced to writing on 1-7-1946. Sriramamurthiproduced the lists before the Commercial TaxOfficer, Vizagapatam, in connection with someenquiry there. The Commercial Tax Officerimpounded the instrument under Section 33 of theIndian Stamp Act and forwarded it to theDeputy Collector, Narasapatam, for collectionof deficit stamp duty and penalty. The RevenueDivisional Officer held that the document wasa partition deed and, therefore, required to bestamped as a partition deed. He directed Sriramamurthi to pay a sum of Rs. 459...
Adusumilli Venkata Gopala Rao and ors. Vs. Yerreni Kantamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad369; (1952)2MLJ479
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 1 of 1946 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam appeal against the decree of the learned Judge dismissing their suit brought for setting aside the decree in O. S. No. 33 of 1936 on the file of the same Court obtained by defendant 1 against them and defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiffs are the sons of defendant 2. Defendant 1 instituted O. S. No. 33 of 1936 above mentioned to recover a sum of Rs. 14893-13-6 due under two promissory notes dated 5th March 1930 executed by defendant 2, i.e., the father of the plaintiffs in her favour for Rs. 8703-3-3 and Rs. 605-9-3 respectively. As the father had been adjudicated insolvent, the Official Receiver was also made a party. The plaintiffs were all minors on the date of the institution of that suit and they were represented by their mother as their guardian. She filed a written statement in which three defences were raised, viz., (1) that the amounts under the promissory notes were bor...
Sakuntala Bai Vs. Venkatakrishna Reddi, the Customs Inspector of Reddi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad667; (1952)1MLJ646
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition filed against the order of discharge made by the learned District Magistrate (Judicial), of South Arcot at Cuddalore in C. C. No. 399 of 1950.2. The facts are: One Sakunthala Bai travelled in a bus from Pondicherry to Cuddalore on 17-4-1950. It is stated that she was on her way to her husband's house. The bus was stopped at Reddichavadi Customs Chouki for inspection by the customs authorities. This Sakunthala Bai states that she was examined by the, woman customs guard and was sent out and that while she was about to get back intc. the bus she was called by the accused Venkatakrishna Reddi, the Inspector of the Reddichavadi Customs Chouki and asked to remove the gold bangles and the gold golusu worn by her and that she refused to do so. Thereupon the accused is said to have abused her and also assaulted her by giving a slap on her face and a few blows on her back with his leather belt and that he forcibly removed the gold bangle...
R.V.K.M. Surya Rao Bahadur Varu, Rajah of Pithapuram Vs. the Board of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad472; (1953)IMLJ362
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of 'certiorari' and for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 6-8-1951.2. The building described in the schedule annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the petition is situated in Polavaram B Estate, East Godavari district. In March 1950 the manager of the Pitapur and other allied estates filed a petition before the Estates Abolition Tribunal for having the value of the said building assessed. That application was referred to the District Collector, Eluru, for enquiry, who forwarded the same to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that the said building constituted two sepa-rate buildings, one of them being used as an office before Act 26 of 1948 came into force, and the other, a small one, being used by visiting officers and by other guests. The Board directed the value of the main building to be deducted from the compensation payable to the Zamindar, and excluded the smaller building from the o...
In Re: M. Rajarama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad578; (1952)1MLJ468
1. This is a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who has been charged in a criminal case, with an offence under Section 3(2) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, dated 19th November 1946 and subsequently renewed, read with the Madras Foodgrains (Intensive Procurement) Order, 1948. This application was admitted in 1950 and referred by one of us (Somasundaram, J.) to a Bench for determination as to the correct procedure to be adopted in such cases.2. The first point for determination is whether the petitioner has satisfied us that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is raised for determination. There is the broad allegation that the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 is 'ultra vires.' This is sought to be founded on a defect in the order of the Taluk Supply Officer passed against the petitioner directing him to supply at fixed rate to the Government 239 1/2 bags of paddy. He is prosecu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »