Chennai Court September 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.
Krishnappa Chettiar Vs. Sivagami Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad549; (1953)IMLJ43
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case, which has been preferred against the judgment of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Deva-kottai, in M. C. No. 4 of 1951.2. The short facts are: Sivaksmi Achi, the respondent before MB, is the lawfully wedded wife of Krishnappa Chettiar. Krishnappa Chettiar and Sivakami Achi could not carry on their married life by 1948, This Chettiar, as is common in these parts, was keeping a concubine and wanted to take a second wife also. Therefore, the husband and wife entered into an arrangement, which has been marked as Ex. D. 1, and it is no body's case that this arrangement was not entered into or that the husband is going behind Ex. D. 1.3. The relevant passage in Ex. D. 1 is as follows:'As the party No. 1 among us is about to marry a second wife and as the party No. 2 above could not hereafter live amicably With party No. 1 and in view of the above factors, accounts were looked into with the help of mediators and it was settled that p...
In Re: Annamalai Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad362
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This S. R. is sought to be filed as a Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 15-10-1951, in the nature of an award, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai, in C. L. No. 920/50-51.2. The High Court Office thereupon took two objections viz., that this Civil Revision petition has not been filed within 90 days of the date of the order and secondly, that it does not appear that a civil revision petition of this nature can be preferred on the foot of Article 227, Constitution of India.3. Taking the first point, there is a delay of 8 days and the learned advocate is directed to file a formal petition for excusing the delay and orders will be passed excusing the delay. This aspect of the case need not detain us further.4. The maintainability of this S. R. as a civil revision petition depends upon the decision whether it would be open to the High Court to revise, the order. Under Section 51(6)(a) of Madras Act 6 of 1932 any decisio...
Hajee Mahomed Abdul Rahman Vs. Tajunnissa Begum and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad420; (1952)2MLJ846
1. This is an appeal'against the order of Panchapakesa Aiyar J. directing the appellant to pay to respondent 1 a sum of Rs. 500 by way of interim maintenance pending the disposal of a suit on the Original Side of this Court. Respondent 1 in her plaint alleged that the appellant had married her in 1943 and that she continued to live with him for some time but that he latterly neglected her and did not maintain her and the relief prayed for is that defendant 1 be directed to pay arrears o maintenance and also future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 a month. The plaintiff also filed an application for an award of interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit. Defendant 1 contested the claim. He denied he ever married the plaintiff and disputed his liability to pay any maintenance. The application for award of interim maintenance came up before Panchapakesa Aiyar J. After taking some evidence, he properly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case but directed that d...
M. Kanniappan Vs. Akilandammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad427; (1953)IMLJ829
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a Criminal Revision Case filed against the order made by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate Egmore, in an application preferred under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code in M. P. No. 1099 of 1951 involving an important question of interpretation of the words 'living in adultery'.2. The facts are--The petitioner Akilandammal is the lawfully wedded wife of the respondent M. Kanniappati. They belong to the scheduled caste. This Kanniappan was a Member of the previous Legislative Assembly. In the recent elections also he tried but failed. This Kanniappan was a detenu during the Civil disobedience movement. While he was in detention this Kanniappan had directed his wife Akilandammal to live with his mother at No. 68 Kalathi Appu Mudali Street, Choolai, Madras. The dependents of these detenus were being supported by Government. In this case under the instructions of this Kanniappan the wife Akilandammal was being given a maintenance of Rs. 15/- p. m. for t...
Belegal Gundachar and anr. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad537; (1953)IMLJ262
1. The two petitioners in "this petition, are the joint pattadars of S. No. 406 in the village of Kamalapuram, Hospet taluk, Bellary district. The said plot of land and other plots covered by S. No. 405 etc., belonging to the petitioners are being irrigated by '. water taken from sluice No. 68 in the Government Roya Channel through a main distributory channel which runs over some of the lands belonging to the petitioners as well as on poromboke lands. The third respondent is the pattadar of S. No. 404 lying to the north of S. No. 406. Though it is registered as dry, it can be cultivated with wet crops if there is adequate water supply. After obtaining reports from the Revenue Officers the Collector sanctioned a proposal for the acquisition of a portion of S. No. 406 belonging to the petitioners for excavating a field distributory channel to irrigate S. No. 404 belonging to the third respondent, provided the cost of the acquisition was met by the third respondent. Accordingly a notifica...
B.N. Viswanathan Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad558; [1953]23CompCas63(Mad); (1953)IMLJ408
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the conviction and sentence of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras, in C. C. No. 4903 of 1951.2. The facts are; The petitioner before us, B. N. Viswanathan, who was the fourth accused in the lower Court was one of the Directors of the Madras Electrical Industries Ltd., by its Managing Agents, the Indian Trades and Investments Ltd. This fourth accused appears to have had the controlling interest in the Managing Agency because out of the ten shares of the Managing Agency concern, nine belongs to his wife, for whom he acts, and one belongs to this accused as pointed out by Mack J. in his order in O. P. No. 1023 of 1951. This accused has also given his address as 310-311 Lingi Chetti Street to the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and this is the address of the Managing Agency concern, the Indian Trades and Investments Ltd., also.3. In these circumstances on account of the internecine q...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›