Chennai Court January 1953 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: Venkataswami Aiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad941; (1953)1MLJ658
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This criminal revision case is preferred against the conviction and sentence in C. C. No. 10 of 1951 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kollegal, from which C. A. No. 1 of 1952 was filed before the Sessions Judge, Colmbatore, wherein the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified.2. The facts are: One Chinna Malappa executed a settlement deed Ex. p. 10 on 29-7-1950. It was written by Venkataswami Aiyah, karnam of Ikkadahali village, Kollegal taluk. The document was registered as No. 3937 of 3950 of Book 1 of the Sub-Registrar of Kollegal. The value of the property as set forth in the document is Rs. 2000. The District Registrar initiated the prosecution of both these persons under Section 27 read with Section 64, Stamp Act on the foot that the property had been grossly under-valued. The executant died on 2-8-1950. The case against him abated. The enquiry proceeded against this scribe only. Both the Courts below found that this accused...
Madavi Amma Vs. Nallammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad924; (1953)2MLJ112
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. In the course of proceedings for execution of an order for eviction under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, the present petitioner caused an obstruction which was directed to be removed by the executing Court. This revision petition which is preferred against the order of removal is sought to be sustained by Mr. M. S. Venkatarama Aiyar learned advocate for the petitioner, with reference to Section 12(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, as amended by Madras Act 8 of 1951. 2. A two-fold objection has been raised to the case of the petitioner before me by Mr. Vaithiswaran, learned advocate for the respondent. Firstly he says that the proper remedy for the petitioner is a suit under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil P. C. as would follow from the ruling of this Court reported in -- 'Mathradas Vadilal v. Kishen Jhavar', : AIR1951Mad822 (A), which in its turn is based upon an earlier Bench ruling of this Court in -- 'Thangaswam...
Gobald Motor Service Ltd., a Company Registered Under the Indian Compa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad981; (1953)2MLJ532
1. This appeal arises out of an action instituted by the respondents for compensation under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 13 of 1855. The appellant is a company engaged in the business of transporting passengers by bus between Dharapuram and Palani, among other places. On 20-9-1047 one of their buses MDC. 2414, while running from Dharapuram to Palani with passengers, met with an accident at a place called Puliampatti about 3 miles from Palani, as a result of which some of the passengers sustained injuries and one of them Rajaratnam died on 23-9-1947. Plaintiff 1 is his father, plaintiff 2 is his widow and plaintiffs 3 to 7 are his sons. They alleged in the plaint that the driver who was in charge of the bus was incompetent and inexperienced; that he was guilty of rash and negligent conduct In the driving of the bus; and that the accident was the result of his incompetence and negligence. Compensation was claimed under Section 1 of the Act for the Joss of pecuniary benefit ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Jalayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad303
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This criminal revision case has been preferred against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, in C.A. No. 115 of 1951 arising out of M.C. No. 8 of 1951 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bapatla.2. The facts are: In connection with the trapping of one Francis, Train Examiner, who was caught red-handed with a sum of Rs. 30 in marked currency notes by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tenali, two persons, viz., K. Jalayya and B. Nageswara Rao, the respondents before us, gave statements under Section 164, Criminal P.C. before the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Tenali. The substance of Jalayya's statement was that he witnessed payment of Rs. 30 by B. Nageswara Rao to Francis on demand at about 4 p.m. on 10-3-1950 at the office, of Francis and that Nageswara Rao promised to pay Rs. 12 to Francis in the next month. The substance of the statement given by B. Nageswara Rao was that he paid a bribe of Rs. 20 to Francis when he was fi...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. G. Sadagopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad785; (1953)1MLJ475
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C. A. No. 69 of 1951, reversing the conviction and sentence of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S. C. No. 55 of 1951.2. The facts are : The respondent G. Sadagopan was the Head Clerk of the District Engineer's Office, Podanoor, south Indian Railway, On information received that this Sadagopan was a bribe-taker, investigation was started by the Special Police Establishment, Madras. It is enough for the purpose of this case that this Special police Establishment, Madras, unearthed 3 instances against him, viz., that he accepted on 1-5-1950 at Podanur Rs. 30/- from K. Rajgopal for transferring him from Udumalpet; accepted in January 1950 Bs. 25/- from Swami for giving a permanent vacancy and demanded in or about November 1949 from Sri Narasimhain at Podanur 30 per cent, of the travelling allowance bills for passing the same, on the foot that each of these...
Public Prosecutor Vs. K.V.R. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad862; (1953)1MLJ593
Ramaswami, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against, the order of acquittal made by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C. NO. 445 of 1951. 2. The facts are: On 11-6-1951 Sanitary Inspectors Natarajan and Hussain Khan went to the shop of K. V. B. Annamalai Chettiar in Rajah Street, Coimbatore. This proprietor was absent and in fact he is stated to be alive at Perundurai. The employee in the shop S. Shanmugham was present. In the show case in front of the shop there was a tin of butter. Sanitary Inspector Natarajan purchased for the purpose of analysis half a pound of butter from that tin and paid for it. The butter was divided into three parts and the formalities prescribed under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act were followed. The butter sent to the Government Analyse, Guindy, was found by the latter to be adulterated with 8.1 per cent, of excess water. Thereupon the proprietor of the shop Annamalai Chettiar and the employee Shanmugham have bee...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Sarisetti Venkatasubbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1953
Reported in: (1951)IIMLJ52
Ramaswami, J. 1. The respondent is a dealer in chillies in Sulurpet taluk. He was assessed to sales-tax by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for the year 1948-49, that is to say, for the transaction from 1-4-1948 to 31-3-1949 on a turnover of over Rs. 30515/5/1. Ex. P. 1 is the assessment order. Ex. P. 2 is the demand notice served on the respondent on 10-2-1950. Ex. P. 3 is the return in form A submitted by the respondent. The respondent, accused not having paid the assessment as per the demand he has been charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 15(b), Madras General Sales-tax Act, 1939. On these facts being affirmatively proved by the prosecution the accused, respondent, stated that he was never a dealer purchasing and selling chillies, that he had no business of his own and that he was doing the business on behalf of the ryots and that he did not commit any offence as charged.2. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in this particular case, and this is not the first instance of ...
Sreenivasan and ors. Vs. Rangachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad815; (1953)1MLJ595
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants and are the sons of defendant 1 by his second wife. Defendants 2 and 3 are his sons by his first wife. There is another son Aravamudha Aiyangar, who is not made a party to the suit. In 1931, defendant 1 purchased an extent of 73 cents of property for a sum of Rs. 1,000. He paid cash in part and for the balance executed a promissory note in favour of the vendor for a sum of Rs. 570 on the date of the sale. The vendor, in his turn, endorsed over the promissory note to defendant 4, one Srinivasachari. The father failed to pay the debt with the result that Srinivasachari, defendant 4, instituted a suit on the promissory note O. S. No. 31 of 1934, District Munsif's Court, Arni and obtained a decree against the father. As he was only an endorsee of the promissory note and was not an assignee of the debt as well, he could not under law implead the sons also as parties to the action and obtain a decree on the debt against the sons. In d...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Pattu Narasimhulu A.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad810; (1951)IIMLJ629
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the state against the acquittal by the learned Sub Magistrate, Badvel in C. C. No. 1811 of 1951.2. The facts are: On information received the Health Inspector, P. W. 1 went to the bazar at Badvel on 29-6-1951 at about 9 a.m. and Inspected the house and shop of the accused and his father and on finding the accused there asked him to keep open the godown which is situated a little away from the shop and he among other things found there smooth pea flour with which we are now concerned here. The Health Inspector took sample of the pea flour and sent it to the Public Analyst for analysis & it was declared as adulterated with 'lak dhall' flour (kesari dhall). It was a mixture of 'lak dhal' of about 80 per cent with Bengal gram flour of 20 per cent and it also contained an artificial water-soluble yellow colouring matter derived from coal tar. Inasmuch as sale or possession for the purpose of sale under any description of artificially coloured B...
Munagala Venkateswara Rao Vs. Mohammad Mohibulla Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1953
Reported in: (1953)IMLJ636
Govinda Menon, J.1. The suit out of which this revision petition arises was for a sum of money said to be the excess rent which the petitioner had agreed to pay to the respondent in accordance with a rent chit executed by him. The agreement was that the petitioner should pay Rs. 9 per month as rent for the premises from 1-7-1947 till 30-6-1949 and vacate the premises thereafter. If, on the other hand, he continued to remain on the premises, a higher rent at the rate of Rs. 14 per mensem was to be paid. The present suit is for recovery of the difference in rent from 1-7-1949 to 12-1-1951 at the rate of Rs. 5 per mensem. The defendant contested the suit On the ground that the agreement was null and void and was against the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1945, and therefore the agreement could not be enforced. There is a further contention that since the plaintiff had received without protest the rent at the rate of Rs. 9 per mensem even after 1-7-1949, h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »