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.
Jaya Bharat Tile Works, Samalkot, Madras State Represented by Its Part ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad30; (1954)ILLJ286Mad; (1952)2MLJ547
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India made in App. No. 176 of 1951.2. The petitioner is the Jaya Bharat Tile Works, Samalkot. It is a partnership business of which Madapati Satti Reddi is a partner. The business was started in the year 1949. On 6th December 1948, the Government of Madras referred the disputes between the workers and the management of four other factories to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal gave its award on 13th August 1949 and it was accepted by the Government. The award was to be in force for one year. The term expired on 23rd Aug. 1950. On 24th Aug. 1950, that is the next year after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of the award the petitioner closed the business. The other four factories also closed their business on 25th September 1950. The petitioner reopened the factory on 13th December 1950. The Government in their order dated 27th October 1...
Fathima Bi Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Accommodation Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad257; (1952)2MLJ767
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Accommodation Controller dated 17-7-1951 and 4-8-1951. The petitioner is the owner of the house and premises No. 1/3 Jones Street, G.T. Madras. On 15-1-1951 one Fernando wrote a letter to the Accommodation Controller stating that he was a tenant of the said premises and that he was vacating the same on 15-1-1951. After making some enquiries, on 7-2-1951, the Accommodation Controller issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 3(1), Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act) calling for particulars and intimating her that the premises have to be kept vacant for seven days from the date of the furnishing of the particulars. The petitioner did not reply, to that notice. On 25-4-4951 a complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the petitioner was fined a sum of Rs. 75.2. The Accommodation Controller allotted the house...
Sampoornam Vs. N. Sundaresan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad78; (1952)2MLJ573
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against an order made by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras in M. P. No. 745 of 1951.2. The short facts are: The petitioner before us Sampaonam aged about 25 was married to the respondent Sundaresan in Madras in 1939. They lived for a year at No. 2 Hensman Road, T. Nagar, belonging to the father of the petitioner. Then this Sundaresan was employed as an Assistant in the Metallurgical Department at Tatanagar. The marriage was consummated only in June 1940 at Trichirapalli. Then the petitioner joined her husband at Tatanagar. They were visiting Madras as Madras was their first home to attend to business or ceremonies etc. In July 1950 the petitioner came to Madras along with her husband. They stayed for some time in Madras and the husband went back leaving the wife here for medical treatment. The husband has been then writing to her to come to Tatanagar after being restored to health and has been se...
C. Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. the Madras State Represented by the Accommoda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad252; (1952)2MLJ761
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a 'writ of certiorari' to quash the order of the Accommodation Controller, Madras, made in respect' of the ground floor of the house and premises No. 9 Krishnapuram Street, Royapettah. The petitioner is the owner of the said house. He and his wife with their two sons were living in the said house from the year 1935, For about nine years they occupied the entire building. In June 1944 he let out the ground floor to Miss E. T. Rajeswari M. A., Professor of Physics in Lady Wellingdon Training College, Triplicane, Madras. It is said that the ground floor was let to her to oblige his friends. In June 1945 the petitioner's son died. Professor Rajeswari vacated the ground floor of the house on 27th April 1951.The petitioner gave the notice of vacancy to the Accommodation Controller on 28th April 1951. He intimated to the officer his intention not to let it to any other tenants, as he required it for himself. Therein it was also stated th...
P.S. Abdul Kadir Vs. the Mahlarathul Kadiria Sabha Kayalpatnam, Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad143; (1952)2MLJ657
1. The defendant in O. S. No. 58 of 1945 in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin is the appellant before us. The suit was for the recovery of property consisting of a house and site in. Kayalpatnam in Tiruneveli district. The suit property originally belonged to one Abdul Khadar who made a wakf of the same by a deed dated 14-6-1921, Ex. D. 2. The wakf deed was executed in favour of two persons, M.K. K.T. Ahmed Mohideen and Chinna M.K. Ahmed Moideen as managers of the Mahlara at Ambala Maricair Avergal Street belonging to the Kadiria Muslim community of Kayalpatnam south. The Kadiria Tharikh is a small sect of Muslims said to have been founded by s disciple of the Holy Prophet. The sect holds certain peculiar tenets and believes in the efficacy of japan (zikr). This property was sold to the defendant by a deed dated 10-4-1941 for a sum of Rs. 1550 by Chinna K. M. Mahomed Labbai and Chinna A. K. Sheik Abdul Khadar describing themselves as managers of the Mahlara. It is common ...
The Travancore Forward Bank Ltd. by Its Agent, M.K. Ellias Vs. R. Gopa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad99; (1952)IIMLJ685
ORDERRajamannar, C.J. 1. The Vakil's fee originally was fixed at Rs. 118. The suit was for Rs. 5063 and was filed under Order 37, Civil P. C. Subsequent to the decree an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the decree by adding Rs. 118 more towards the lawyer's fee. Notice of that application was taken to the advocate for the defendant and as no counter statement was filed, on 7-7-1949 the Court amended the decree as prayed for by the plaintiff. Then subsequently on 20-7-1949 the Court suo motu vacated the order dated 7-7-1949 and posted the ease for hearing. On 26-7-1949 the learned Judge passed an order as follows: 'The vakil's fee allowed is correct in view ofRule 37 (f) redd with Rule 31 (b) proviso. Theorder passed on 7-7-1949 is not correct. Thispetition is dismissed.' In my opinion, the learned Judge was in error. Rule 37 (f) of the Legal Practitioners Rules prescribes for suits under Order 37, Civil P. C. Where leave to defend has not been granted, the fee s...
V.L. Narasu Carrying on Business Under the Name and Style of Narasu Pi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad300; (1952)2MLJ832
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree in C. S. No. 118 of 1947 on the file of the Original Side of this court. The appellant is the Managing Director of a company called the Presidency Talkies Ltd., which owns a cinema house called "the Paragon Talkies" The plaintiff is the producer of a film called "Rukmangadan". On 31-8-1946 an agreement was entered into between the parties, (Ex. P. 1) for exhibiting this picture in the Paragon Talkies. The agreement runs as follows:31st August 1946"ToMr. P. S. V, Aiyar,Messrs. Ayyar Productions,Mount Road, Madras.Dear Sir,In continuation to our letter of the 28th inst. and with further reference to our personal interview of the 30th, we agree to release your picture 'Rukmangadan' featuring G. N. B. and others, in continuation of "Mayamachindra" in our Paragon Talkies, Madras, on the following terms:1. Date of release: In continuation to 'Mayamachindra' failure on your part to supply your picture immediately in continu...
Jayalakshmi Ammal and anr. Vs. Subbraya Reddiar (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad806; (1952)2MLJ439
ORDERMack, J.1. A simple but interesting point arises on this revision petition, namely, whether a decree-holder, who has a charge on property, can apply under Order 21, Rule 89 C. P. C. to set aside the court sale held in execution at his or her own instance. The District Munsif answered the question in the affirmative but the learned District Judge took a different view and held that Order 21, Rule 89, C. P. C:, did not apply to decree-holders. The charge-holder is the petitioner and is strenuously opposed by the auction-purchaser, who it may be mentioned, bought two acres and 97 cents of lands of which 77 cents were wet in the auction for only Rs. 192.2. The charge-holders were a widow Jayalakshmi Ammal and her minor daughter, who in O. S. No. 417 of 1944, was granted maintenance with a charge on certain items of property. In execution, they brought this land to sale with this result. They filed two applications, under Order 21. Rule 89 and also under Order 21, Rule 90. They obvious...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›