Chennai Court August 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: Veerappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad1003; (1952)2MLJ749
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This matter comes up for orders on an office note in the following circumstances.2. The facts are: S. R. No. 30122 is sought to be filed as a C. M. A. under Order 43, Rule 1(d), C. P. C. against the order o the Subordinate Judge's Court of Coimbatore passed in I, A. No. 1313 of 1951 in O. P. No. 112 of 1950 refusing to set aside the ex parte order passed earlier in I. A. No. 414 of 1950 in the same O. P. This O. P. No. 112 of 1950 was filed under Section 5(1) of Madras Act 6 of 1949 for the dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent therein. The learned Judge passed an ex parte order in I. A. No. 414 of 1950 under Section 5, Clause 7(a) of the Act making interim provision for the expenses of prosecuting the O. P. and maintenance of the petitioner. The respondent subsequently filed I. A. No. 1313 of 1951 under Section 151 and Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. for setting aside that order. This petition was dismissed. Therefore this S. R. has been fil...
In Re: K.V.V. Sarma, Manager, Gemini Studios, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad269; (1953)IILLJ29Mad; (1952)IIMLJ917
1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the manager of the Gemini Studios. Madras, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, for having contravened the provisions of the Factories Act and having thereby committed an offence under Section 92 of the said Act.2. The appellant has boon found guilty of the following three offences: (1) under Section 61 and Section 108(2) read with Rule 79 for having failed to specify, or enter, in the notice of periods of work exhibited at the main entrance of the studio, the working hours of the workers engaged in the departments, of directors and artists, cameramen and sound engineers, makeup artists, electricians, editors, laboratorians and still photographers and their assistants; (2) under Section 62 read with Rule 80 for having failed to enter the particulars of all the workers engaged in the said department in Form No. 12 register; and (3) under Section 20 read with Rule 51 for having failed to provide spittoons in the factory as per the type prescr...
Guruperla Subbarayulu Setti and ors. Vs. Thota Venkataramanamma and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad540; (1952)IIMLJ880
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The suit was instituted for the recovery of a large amount of Rs. 30000 as principal and interest due under a mortgage, Ex. P. 1, dated 19-9-25 executed by one T. Seshaih, the father of defendants 2 to 4 and the husband of the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. There were various defences to the action, and we are now concerned only with two questions: (1) whether the debt is liable to be scaled down under Madras Act 4 of 1938 and (2) what amount should be deducted as rent for the godown in the occupation of the plaintiffs from the amount due under the mortgage.2. The defendants claimed that they were agriculturists entitled to the relief under the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge found that they were agriculturists, and that they were entitled to relief under Act 4 of 1938. The attempt of the plaintiffs was to exclude the application of the Act to the present case by alleging that the case fell under Section 4(d) of the ...
South India Bank Ltd. Vs. T.D. Pichuthayappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad326; (1953)IMLJ306
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a 'writ or certiorari' to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, dated 23rd July 1951. The petitioner is the South India Bank Ltd. Respondent 1 was a clerk in the office of the petitioner. On 25-9-1950 he was served with a notice of termination of his employment. In the said notice it was stated that on account of retrenchment his services were terminated with effect from 1-10-1950. On 18-10-1950 he preferred an appeal under Section 41(2), Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereafter called the Act) to the Labour Commissioner, Madras, Questioning the validity of the termination of service. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, after making the prescribed enquiry and after hearing the parties, held that the discharge of the applicant was not for a reasonable cause and set aside the order of the bank discharging the petitioner. The bank filed the aforesaid writ fo...
Gandavani Lakshama Naidu Vs. Maddini Kannayya Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad557; (1953)IMLJ96
Subba Rao, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of an application filed by the appellant under Section 19, Madras Agriculturists Relief Act to scale. down the decree debt. The appellant is defendant 3 in the suit. He along with other executed a usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 400. On 15-5-1941 he sold the property, the subject matter of the usufructuary mortgage, in favour of Yengamma lor a consideration of Rs. 600. A petition for amendment of the decree was filed on the basis of Section 9A, Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The relevant sub-section, via., Section 9-A(7) reads as follows:'(7) Nothing contained in this section except sub-section (1) shall apply to any usufructuary mortgage, (i) ...... (ii) in respect of property situated in any other area, in the cases mentioned below: (a) Where during the period after 30-9-1937 and before 30-1-1948, the equity of redemption in the property subject to the usufructuary mortgage h...
Varada Pillai Vs. Sriramalu Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad894; (1953)IMLJ31
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. As assignee of a mortgage he instituted O.S. No. 50 of 1948 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's court, Chingleput, against defendants 1 and 2 who are the minor sons of one Subbaraya Reddi, for a mortgage decree on a mortgage executed by Subbaraya Reddi in favour of one Munuswami Reddi on 9-7-1925 for Rs. 4000 and assigned by Munuswami Reddi in the plaintiff's favour on 15-4-1943. Subbaraya Reddi had three sons, one Dasu Reddi who is alive and who is not made a party, and defendants 1 and 2 who are minors and are represented by a guardian 'ad litem'. Subbaraya died in 1944. On 29-11-1940 his eldest son Dasu Reddi executed 'a release, Ex. A. 8, taking away his one-fourth share and releasing his rights in the joint family and its properties. Exhibit A. 8 makes it clear that thereafter he shall have only blood relationship and that there shall be no right as regards assets and liabilities.2. It may be necessary to refer to the transa...
A.G. Nallaperumal Nattarayar Vs. Singaravelu Seennandar and Kolandayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad375; (1952)2MLJ681
Raghava Rao, J. 1. Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar has raised an interesting point in this civil revision petition. I have after hearing the elaborate arguments of Mr. Kothandarama Naya-nar on the point in question, come to the definite conclusion that this revision must fail. 2. The point raised is that on an application for re-adjudication after the annulment of the original adjudication on account of the failure of a composition scheme which intervened, it was incumbent upon the petitioning creditors to satisfy the requirements of Section 9, Provincial Insolvency Act. The petition for cancellation of the original adjudication and for re-adjudication was presented to the Court below under Section 40, Provincial Insolvency Act. Mr. Ramakrishna Aiyar urges that the debtor ought not to have been re-adjudicated an insolvent because the persons applying for his re-adjudication did not prove that the debts alleged to be due to them were subsisting. That such debts were not subsisting the learned cou...
P. L. Sp. Nk. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. Veeyares and Co. by Its Sole-propri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad296; (1952)2MLJ797
1. The proprietors of the plaintiff firm described it as a firm of stock and share brokers. His place of business was Devakottah. In para 4 of his written statement the defendant contended that the plaintiff was both a broker and a dealer in shares. The defendant did not challenge the correctness of the plaintiff's description of the defendant as a dealer in shares. The defendant was also a resident of Devakottah. Both parties agreed that transactions between them in purchase and sale of shares commenced on 7-6-1945. The plaintiff claimed that the transactions between himself and the defendant formed the basis of an open, mutual and current account between them. The plaintiff's claim in the suit was for the amount due to him on an account stated to the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant appealed.2. Though the appeal was against the decree as a whole, learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments to four sets of transactions....
Gurunath Pillai (a Party) Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad325
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This criminal revision petition is preferred against the order made by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam in M.C. No. 2 of 1951 directing that the properties involved in Section 145, Crl. P. C. be attached under Section 146, Crl. P. C.2. The short facts are: The question which fell to be considered by the Additional First Class Magistrate was as to who was in possession of Section No. 457/3 after 20-4-1950 on 9-3-1951 that is whether the field had come to be in the possession of Veerappa Chettiar or had continued to remain I the possession of Kandaswami Pillai.3. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate has discussed in paragraph 14 of his judgment the reasons for his inability to be satisfied as to who was in possession of the property. The learned Magistrate after setting out the evidence adduced before him on this point has stated: 'The oral evidence let in by both sides to prove possession after 20-4-1950 is thus unreliable and unworthy of...
Maddela Krishnayya Vs. Maddela Udayalakshmamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1952
Reported in: (1953)2MLJ241
1. The properties which are the subject-matter of this litigation belonged to one Gopalu, as his self-acquisitions. He had five sons and two daughters. One of the sons Ramiah died on 24th December, 1915, leaving behind his widow Seshammal. As a provision for her maintenance Gopalu settled on her one acre in Survey No. 585/B which was of the total extent of two acres and six cents. The deed of settlement Exhibit P-8 provides that she would enjoy this property during her lifetime without powers of alienation and that on her death it should revert to the family. The remaining one acre and six cents in Survey No. 585/B was settled by Gopalu on one of his sons Venkayya who is the second defendant in the suit. On 12th July, 1917, Seshammal leased the property which was settled on her under Exhibit P-8 to one Adappa for a period of nine years, as per Exhibit P-2. On the termination of this lease the second defendant became a lessee under Seshammal of the property comprised in Exhibit P-8 and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »