Chennai Court July 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.
R.M.S. Deivanai Achi Vs. P.L.L.N. Kannappa Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad802; (1952)2MLJ464
1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and while I agree with his conclusion I would venture to add a few words of my own, especially since the question argued is bereft of authority in. this court and is important from the point of view of the construction of the Registration Act. Is the compromise decree charging properties specifically mentioned in the schedule thereto but which were not in terms the subject-matter of the litigation, compulsorily registrable under Section 17(I) of the Registration Act? That it is a document which purports to create right, title and interest in immoveable property of the value of more than Rs. 100 has not been questioned; and but for the fact that Section 17(2) Clause (vi) as it originally stood exempted a decree or order of court from being compulsorily registered, the decree in question would, of necessity, be registrable. By the amendment made by Section 10 of the Transfer of Property (Ame...
Dindigal SkIn Merchants' Association and Ors. Vs. the Industrial Tribu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad102; (1952)2MLJ512
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the notification of Government in G.O. No. 4605 (Development Department) dated 19-10-1951 or to issue an order in the nature of mandamus directing the Industrial Tribunal, Madurai, to forbear from proceeding with the reference made by the Government. The petitioner is the Dindigul Skin Merchants Association. That Association was formed to represent the employers of about nineteen tanneries. In regard to the employees working in those tanneries there are three associations, (1) the National Tanneries Workers Association Dindigul registered on 5-7-1948, (2) Tanneries Labour Union, Dindigul formed on 20-11-1950 and (3) the Tannery Workers Union, Dindigul, registered in the year 1942. It was banned by Government in September 1949. The ban was lifted in November 1950 and it began to function again from April 1951. The total number of members on the books in regard to the first unio...
V. Ramaswami Iyengar Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad66; (1952)IIMLJ683
Mack, J.1. Two civil miscellaneous appeals and two civil revision petitions have been filed. It is stated, by way of abundant caution by the third defendant in a suit on a mortgage, although it would appear that he has no longer any, right in the subject matter of the litigation. The short facts are these: The first defendant in the suit who was the father of the second and third defendants mortgaged a house to the plaintiff who filed a suit against the father, the two sons and some prior and subsequent mortgagees. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 14-3-1936. The father of the first defendant was then adjudicated an insolvent on 27-12-1936 and after notice to the Official Receiver, the plaintiff in the suit was appointed Receiver from 22-1-1937. The Official Receiver sold the properties subject to the mortgage and it was purchased in auction by one Srinivasan who did not obtain any sale deed from the Official Receiver till 14-12-1945. The third defendant then in 1947 filed...
M.S. Krishnaswami Vs. the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accoun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad79; [1953]23CompCas68(Mad); (1952)2MLJ646
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Order passed by this Court in Refd. Case No. 56 of 1951. Messrs. M.S. Krishnswami and Jagannathan are a firm of Chartered Accountants and they were the auditors of a company called the Amalgamated Coffee Estates Ltd., during the years 19-10-1947 and 1948. On 5-7-1050 Messrs. Devar and Sons Ltd. preferred a complaint to the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants that the auditors; had passed balance sheets which "did not exhibit a true and correct view of the state of affairs of the company and were calculated to mislead whomsoever it concerned, more espceially the debenture holders of the company."The complainants held considerable debentures in the company. On receipt of the complaint, the Council obtained the explanation of the petitioner who was the partner concerned with the balance sheets and sent the matter to the Disciplinary. Committee for enquiry. The Committee took evidence and recorded ...
Yandapalli Venkataraju Vs. HussaIn Shah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad320; (1952)2MLJ500
ORDERRajamannar, C.J.1. In S. A. No. 4 of 1042 which arose out of O. S. No. 124 of 1930 in the Sub-Court, Kakinada, this court passed a decree inter alia directing a partition of item 1 of the plaint schedule into three equal shares and awarding the plaintiff an one-third share and the other contesting party who is the petitioner before me, a two-third share. Subsequent to the decree of this court, the petitioner filed an application in the court below purporting to be under Sections 2 and 4 of the Partition Act, Act IV of 1893, praying that the provisions of that Act may be applied to him. Only the prayers were not happily worded and it is now conceded by Mr. Bhimasankaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the only provision under which the application was really sustain able was Section 2 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge did not go into the merits and decide whether Section 2 of the Partition Act applied and whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke its provision...
Aravamudha Chettiar Vs. M. Abdul Khader Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad268; (1952)2MLJ492
Govinda Menon, J.1. Both the lower courts have held that during the pendency of an appeal against an order made by the Rent Controller for eviction as a result of non-payment of rent the appellate authority has no power to condone the non-payment by acceptance of rent. The proviso added to Section 7, Sub-section (2) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act states that when an application for eviction is made on the ground of the tenant's default to pay rent in time, if the Controller is satisfied that the default to pay rent was not wilful, the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time not exceeding 15 days to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender. This shows that the Controller has got to explain for the non-payment of rent and thereby condone the temporary default on the part of the tenant. If such, condonation is made, then, the application by the landlord will be dismissed. 2. Mr. K. Raman relies upon Section 7 ...
Grandhi Ramakrishnayya and ors. Vs. Grandhi Atchutha Ramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad146; (1952)2MLJ515
1. There is an appeal by the defendants and a memorandum of cross-objections by the plaintiffs against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry in the suit O. S. No. 126 of 1947 for partition. The first defendant is the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are minors represented by their next friend and brother the first plaintiff. They are the sons by the deceased first wife of the first defendant and the second defendant is the second wife of the first defendant. The third defendant is the son of the first defendant, born on 15-11-1947 during the pendency of this suit which was instituted on 13-3-1947. The suit was preceded by a notice of 1-12-1946, Ex. B. 1, issued on behalf of the plaintiffs by their pleader in which they claimed a partition of the family properties into four shares and for delivery of possession of three out of them to the plaintiffs. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed a division of the properties specified in A, B, C and D schedules into fou...
C.P. Kunhambu Nair Vs. Kunnuntara Vadakka Veetil Ambu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad214; (1952)2MLJ476
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. Mr. M.K. Nambiar appearing for the petitioner is seeking to revise the order of the learned District Judge of South Kanara whereby he declared that the pending proceedings in O.P. No. 26 of 1951 stood automatically transferred to the appropriate court or authority and that they should be deemed to be pending before that court or authority by virtue of Section 103(3) and (k) of Act 19 of 1951, the New Hindu Religious Endowments Act.2. O.P. No. 26 of 1951 was originally filed under Section 84(2), Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 2 of 1927 praying that the District Court might set aside the order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board that the Vishnumoorthi temple of Cheemani village, Kasargod taluk was a private temple within the meaning of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. When this petition was pending before the learned District Judge of South Kanara, the old Act was re-enacted as Act No. 19 of 1951. In the old Act, Section 9(3) defined court as meani...
S.J.S. Fernandes Vs. V. Ranganayakulu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad236; (1952)2MLJ445
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an application for review of the order passed by me in C. R. P. No. 85 of 1952, dated 23-1-1952.2. The short facts are: The petitioner Sri S.J.S. Fernandez is a tenant and the respondent Sri V. Ranganayakulu Chetti is the landlord in regard to premises No. 3 Singanna Naicken Street, G. T. Madras. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of sub-letting. The Rent Controller found the allegation proved and ordered eviction. The Appellate Court upheld the order. There was a revision petition to the High Court and after hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner, I dismissed the revision petition on the foot that there were no grounds to interfere in revision. This review application has been filed on grounds which have been made to fall under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C.3. The short point for determination is whether this application for review lies.4. The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, and the rules...
In Re: Govindaswami Alias Subbiah Kalingarayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad372; (1952)2MLJ751
Mack, J. 1. This is a strange and somewhat painful case of a youth aged 16 being found guilty of the murder of one Govindan Servai by cutting his neck with an aruval while he was asleep in his house on the night of 18-7-1951. According to the prosecution and the evidence in this case the appellant also similarly cut one Malayappa Konan while he was asleep in his house on the other side of the street Malayappa Konan hacked in the neck also died instantaneously. The learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli tried the present case only as regards the murder of Govindan Servai and found him guilty under Section 302, I. P. C. and while of the opinion that his action in cutting an innocent sleeping man in the neck with an aruval was 'very heinous' sentenced him to the lesser sentence for reasons which completely fail to convince us. The extenuating circumstance which appears, to have been found was that the appellant committed this murder in fear that the deceased was intending to make a repo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »