Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad376; (1952)IIMLJ579
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. The evidence of the doctor shows that even if old sugar juice was taken it may smell like I. D. Arrack. The other symptoms noted namely red eyes and talking at random are consistent with the conduct of a person who is rudely awakened from his sleep and questioned in the manner he has been done. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the smell can come only from I. D. arrack, if the inference is to be drawn about consuming liquor from the smell alone. This it has not done. The other symptoms also must be proved to be due only to the effect of liquor. Such a proof is lacking.2. In the circumstances it cannot be stated that the prosecution has made out its case beyond all doubt. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted....
O. M. Ahamed Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: [1952]22ITR87(Mad)
SATYANARAYANA RAO, J. - The question refer us to decision under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is 'whether on the facts of the case, the loss of Rs. 7,875 claimed, but which had not been determined the assessment for the year 1942-43 can be set off in the assessment for the year 1942-43 can be set off in the assessment for the year 1943-44 under Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The assessee is a merchant carrying on business in yarn and cloth. He apparently started business only in 1941-42 and in the course of the assessment for the year 1943-44 the Income-tax Officer discovered that the assessee was doing business in the assessment year 1942-43 also, though he did not submit a return of his income; and therefore he issued a notice to the assessee under Section 34 of the Act read with Section 22(2) September 21, 1945.The assessee was submitted a return of his income, but it was discover thereafter by the income tax Officer that ther...
Narayana Chandrasekhara Shenoy and Bros. by Sole Proprietor Narayana S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad670; (1952)IIMLJ45
Subba Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of O. S. No. 601 of 1945, a suit filed by the appellant for recovering from the defendant damages for breach of contract.2. On 6-10-1944, the defendant and the plaintiff entered into a contract whereunder it was agreed that the defendant should deliver 151 bags of Kannady quality jaggery at Rs. 20 per bag free on railway Karur. The defendant despatched the goods in Karur and they reached Calicut on 22-10-1944. The plaintiff on inspect-tion of the goods discovered that they were not in accordance with the quality agreed to be delivered. It appears that the agent of the defendant who was in Calicut persuaded the plaintiff to take the goods at Rs. 19 per bag with a promise that the defendant would deliver the goods of the requisite quality in accordance with the terms of the contract dated 6-10-1944.3. Both the Courts found that by reason of the aforesaid agreement the defendant had agreed to deliver the goods under the earlier contract. Unfor...
Chittam Subba Rao Vs. Vela Mankanni Chelamayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad771; (1952)IIMLJ365
1. This application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against the judgment and decree in Appeal No. 253 of 1947 on the file of this court originally came on before Subba Rao and Panchapakesu Aiyar JJ. who had disposed of the appeal. The learned Judges found there was a conflict of decisions of Division Benches and have referred the following question to a Full Bench:"Whether an appeal will lie as of right to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of the High Court if the decree of the first-court is modified in favour of the applicant but in other respects confirmed and if the requirements of the pecuniary valuation are satisfied, but no substantial question of law is involved."2. To understand the scope of the question referred, it is necessary to mention the relevant facts. App. No. 253 of 1947 arose out of a suit O.S. No. 43 of 1946 instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore by the respondent to this application, Chalamayya against...
Singana Sathiraju Vs. Merla Sathamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad819; (1952)2MLJ67
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous second appeal. In execution of a decree passed against him on 3-4-1935, his properties were attached and brought to sale in E. P. No. 104 of 1947. The execution petition was posted for sale to 6-2-1948 and for final hearing to 13-2-1948. On 6-2-1948, the following endorsement is found on the E. P. 'No instructions, no bids, sale stopped. E. P. closed.' On the 11th February 1948 the decree-holder filed an execution petition No. 73 of 1948 with a prayer that it may be treated as a continuation of the prior E. P. No. 104 of 1947 and for fixing a date of sale and for proceeding with the sale. 2. Two objections were raised on behalf of the appellant (i) that the order dated 6th February 1948 was a final order and E. P. No. 73 of 1948 having been presented 12 years after thedate of the decree, is barred by limitation & (ii) that the counsel having reported no instructions on the 6th of February 1948, ...
Kannaganti Suryanarayanamurthi and ors. Vs. Pidugu Rama Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: (1953)1MLJ682
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The respondents herein filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tenali for a declaration that they have exclusive right to hold the lighted torch, Sannidhikola inside the Chariot during the Radhotsavam of Sri Agastheswara Swamj at Nandivelugu and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right. The basis of the suit was that, ever since the inauguration of the car festival, the ancestors of the plaintiffs & the plaintiffs have been exercising exclusive right of holding the lighted torch inside the chariot and that this right was being exercised till they were obstructed by the defendants in the year of 1945.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants, Who are the trustees of the temple mainly on two grounds. The exclusive right of the plaintiffs to hold the Sannidhikola was denied; and ft was also pleaded that the suit was not cognisable by a civil Court as the right claimed related only to a religious honour or dign...
Ravuru Punnamma Vs. Lakkaraju Venkata Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad456; (1952)2MLJ473
Subba Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of O.S. No. 199 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tenali, for recovery of plaint schedule site and for removal of the wall standing thereon. The facts found and admitted may be briefly narrated. The plaintiff and defendant are the owners of adjacent houses in Tenali Municipality, In the year 1917 the defendant's father, Ramakrishniah entered into an agreement in respect of 15-5/9 square yards' in D. No. 55 belonging to the plaintiff. Ramakrishniah intended to construct a building on his site and he found it necessary to have a boundary wall between his site and the plaintiff's site. They agreed that Ramakrishniah should be allowed to construct a masonry wall on the suit site to serve as a boundary and the plaintiff should continue to be the owner of the site. Another stipulation was that Ramakrishniah should not build any house or project his eaves over the wall at any time. He also agreed to keep the said wall in goo...
Arunachala Mooppanar Vs. Arumugha Mooppanar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad550; (1952)2MLJ280
Govinda Menon, J.1. The properly in dispute in this litigation formed part of the estate of one Pattakarathi Moopanar on whose death his widow Esakki Animal succeeded to a widow's estate. By a gift deed Ex. D. 1 dated 12-12-1936 she gifted away the suit and other properties in favour of her brother, defendant 1. Nearly ten years later, by Ex. P. 5 dated 10-2-1946, she surrendered her estate in favour of the nearest reversioner of her husband, the plaintiff. By Ex. D. 6 dated 29-4-1946 father of defendants 4 to 7 purchased for consideration 32 cents of land which are in dispute in this suit from defendant 1, the donee under Ex. D. l. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the 32 cents of land on the strength of the surrender deed, Ex. P. 5, executed in his favour by the widow Esakki Animal. Both the lower Courts have upheld the contention put forward by the alienees that it is not open to a reversioner, to whom the widow ...
Luis Caetano Menzes Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad734; (1952)2MLJ237
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application by one Luis Caetanao Menezes for the issue of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the State of Madras from exercising any of the powers derived from Madras Act X of 1937 (the Madras Prohibition Act), or to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Board of Revenue to issue a permit to the petitioner. In the affidavit in support of the application, the petitioner states that he is a Portuguese subject born at Sholapur of parents both of whom were born in Goa, that his birth certificate proves his Portuguese nationality and his name is inscribed in the register of Portuguese subjects maintained at the Consulate at Madras; that according to the laws of his country he is entitled to all the rights and privileges to which any citizen born in any Portuguese province in Europe is entitled to without any restrictions or limitations whatsoever. It is further stated that after the Madras Prohibition Act was extended to the City of Madras, the petitioner who ...
Pallothu Seetharamayya Vs. Manda Anjayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad850; (1952)IIMLJ31
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the order made by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Vijayawada in C. M. P. No. 2071 of 1951 in O. S. No. 129 of 1951.2. C. M. P. No. 2071 of 1951 was an application made by the defendant under Order 37, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, for leave to defend the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the defence was not a bona fide one and therefore gave leave to the defendant to defend on his depositing the suit amount into court and time was given for doing so till 25th September 1951.3. The contest before me in this civil revision petition is twofold, viz., that first of all, when the learned Subordinate Judge had come to the conclusion that on the defence put forward there was a triable issue he should not have imposed any condition and secondly, that on the facts the defence put forward could not be considered to be lacking in bona fides.4. POINT 1:--The object of this rule requiring that leave to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›