Chennai Court October 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: N. Sakkarai Kannu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1231
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against the order passed by the District Magistrate of Madura in C.A. No. 7 of 1953. The appeal was preferred by the State against the order passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Madurai Town.Before the Sub Magistrate the petitioner herein was charged under Section 65, Madras City Police Act in that on 21-11-52 the petitioner was having in his godowns bearing door Nos. 1 to 6 at East Market Street, Madurai Town, 256 1/2 bags of Tadepalligudem rice which is imported exclusively by the Government from Tadepalligudem and supplied to consumers through retail agents appointed by the Government. The petitioner was asked to explain the possession of this as there was a reasonable doubt that they were either stolen property or property fraudulently obtained. The Sub Magistrate found that there was no satisfactory explanation by the petitioner for the possession of these bags of rice and therefore convicted him under Section 65 and sentenced him to pay a fin...
In Re: U.R.M.M.S.S. Subramanian Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad210
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed for revising and setting aside the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, directing a commission to issue for examining the defendant, Vinaitheerthan Chettiar, in O. S. No. 8 of 1953 on his file. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge allowed the petition on the ground that the defendant had gone to Alor Star, Kedan State, Malaya, and would not be returning for a year, and the place where he was 'resident' was more than 200 miles from the court premises. 2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners urged seven reasons for holding that the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge was in Irregular exercise of his discretion, and ought to be set aside as illegal and as causing a material failure of justice. The first was that the defendant went away to Malaya knowing that the plaintiffs would file the suit; but the defendant, on the other hand, alleged that the plaintiffs had filed the suit knowing that he...
Puliyanat Kunhiraman Vydier Vs. Puthan Purayil Nadukutty Govindan Vaid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad641; (1954)IMLJ292
Mack, J.1. This petition raises an interesting point of law whether a sub-tenant, who deposits two months' rent under Section 4(5) of Madras Act 24 of 1949 and obtains stay of the trial of a suit for eviction in which there is also a claim for rent, is entitled to recover this deposit from the tenant by a suit under Section 69, Contract Act. The District Munsif of Nadapuram dismissed the suit by the plaintiff, who was a sub-tenant impleaded as the sixth defendant to recover a sum of over Rs. 400 he had deposited in a suit O. S. No. 291 of 1945 instituted by three plain-tills. The deposit was made in court on 25-11-1946 and recorded in court on 15-1-1947. The learned District Judge of North Malabar reversed the decision of the District Munsif. who held that the sub-tenant was not entitled to recover under Section 69, Contract Act and gave the sub-tenant plaintiff a full decree with costs. In his judgment the learned District Munsif referred to his having decided this question against th...
P. Madhavan Vs. Munir Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad513; (1953)2MLJ839
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is an application by one Madha-van to revise the order of maintenance passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under Section 488, Crl. P. C. The petitioner in the lower court was a Muslim lady and there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner and the . respondent do not enjoy the legal status of husband and wife, despite the fact that they were living as husband and wife. The petitioner herein ap-pears to have executed an agreement, Ex. P-1, by which he agreed to pay Rs. 40 to the petitioner and child. In view of this agreement, although the woman petitioner in the lower court was not the wife, it was ordered that he should pay Rs. 15 to the woman and Rs. 7-8-0 to the child.2. The counter petitioner in the lower court the aforesaid Madhavan has filed this petition to revise this order on the ground that the Court cannot pass an order under Section 488, Crl. p. C. even though both the parties consent to such an order, when the conditions o...
Marimuthu Nadar Vs. TutikorIn Municipality, by Its Commr. Mahdi HussaI ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad212; (1954)IMLJ279
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiffs instituted O. S. No. 309of 1950 in the District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin,a representative suit on behalf of themselves andother owners of properties within the TuticorinMunicipality in respect of which the defendantswho are the Tuticorin Municipality published ascheme for the area covered by these propertiesas the area of Town Planning Scheme 'D' of theTuticorin Municipality. The suit was for a declaration that the 'D' scheme 'propounded by thedefendants under the Town Planning Act wasillegal and 'ultra vires' and for a permanent injunction prohibiting them from enforcing all orany provisions of the scheme against the plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiffs valued the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 110 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 15 for declaration under Schedule II Article 17, Court-fees Act and for injunction at Re. 1-1-0 under Section 7(iv)(d), Court-fees Act. An issue was raised as to the correctness of the Court-fee paid...
Duggireddi Venkataranga Reddi (Died) and ors. Vs. Nandiraju Velugotiah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad540
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. This appeal is by defendants 2 and 3, the undivided sons of the first defendant, who executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in about 1930 comprising several items of properties. The first defendant became insolvent and items 9, 10 and 14 remained with the Official Receiver, the other items having been sold, defendants 4 to 7 being the alienees. The defence to the action was that the suit mortgage was sham and nominal and not supported by consideration and that the suit was barred by limitation. As regards the first of the questions raised, the finding of the lower appellate court was that it was a sham transaction. But the lower appellate court found by reason of a previous decision in O. S. No. 8 of 1938 instituted by defendants 2 and 3 for partition, in which suit an issue was raised whether the suit mortgage was nominal and not supported by consideration and a finding was given that the mortgage was for binding purposes, would be 'res judicata', an...
K. Viswanathan Vs. Namakchand Gupta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad536; (1954)IIMLJ782
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of Balakrishmt Aiyar J., dismissing his suit C. Section No. 29 of 1931 on the file of the original side of this court. The plaintiff is a person with considerable experience in cinema business. Sometime prior to 26-2-1949 he entered into an agreement with the owner of a theatre called the Chitra Talkies in Komaleswaranpet, Madras, for taking it on lease for a period of four years with an option to renew the same for a further period of four years. In pursuance of this agreement he actually entered into possession of the theatre on 1-4-1949 and equipped it with the talkie Machinery, electric fittings, furniture and so forth so as to make it suitable for exhibiting films. Meantime on 26-2-1949 the plaintiff and the defendants had entered into a contract, Ex. P. 1 whereby they agreed to run the theatre in partnership.It is provided in Ex. P. 1 that the plaintiff was to obtain a registered lease deed for the premises and also a lic...
In Re: Gangalakurthi Pattisam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad573; (1954)IMLJ165
1. S. R. No. 23086 of 1953 relates to a civil revision petition purporting to be filed under Article 227, Constitution of India against the decree and judgment of the District Collector of East Godavari at Kakinada in summary Appeal No. 41 of 1952. That appeal was against the order of the Deputy Collector, Peddapuram, in S. S. No. 11 of 1949, which was instituted for the recovery of emoluments attached to the office of the barber service in Tendapalli village of Pithapuram taluk. The suit was filed under Section 13 of Madras Act III of 1895 and the appeal was under Section 23 of that Act. S. R. NO. 17106 ol 1953 relates to a similar appeal under Section 23 of Madras Act III of 1895. The question is whether Article 237 of the Constitution enables a person aggrieved by an order of a tribunal like the District Collector to invoke the revisional powers of this court, or in other words, whether Article 227 of the Constitution confers on the High Court the power to interfere with the order o...
Central Brokers Vs. N.K. Murthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad699; (1954)IMLJ457
1. These appeals arise out of suits instituted by the appellants who are a firm of Stock Brokers called the Central Brokers, for recovery of certain amounts claimed as balance due on account of several purchases and sales of shares effected by them on behalf of the respective defendants. The suits were contested on the ground 'inter alia' that the contracts sued on were void as being in contravention of Section 94-C of the Defence of India Rules, and that the claims based thereon were in consequence unenforceable under Section 23, Contract Act. There were a number of other suits in which the same defence had been raised and Mack J. directed that the question should be argued as a preliminary issue in all of them. After hearing counsel in all the suits, he held that the contracts were illegal and accordingly dismissed the suits 'in limine'.Against this judgment the plaintiffs have preferred the above appeals and the only point that arises for consideration therein is whether the contrac...
Mohammed Sheriff and ors. Vs. P. Mohammed Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1126
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The accused is the petitioner herein. The petitioner was prosecuted on a private complaint for an offence under SB. 171 (d) & 171 (f), I. P. C. The case is that on the date of the Panchayat Board election in Uthamapalayam the accused voted twice giving his own name as P. Mohamed Rowther giving his voter number as 497 and also in his own name with voter number 423 in two wards, viz wards Nos. 10 and 9 respectively. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of the case on the ground that under Rule 27(6) of the Rules framed under Section 112(2) (i) of the Village Panchayats Act, 1950, the sanction of the District Magistrate must have been obtained, and in the absence of such sanction the court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. Rule 27, Clause (6) is as follows:The Election Officer shall immediately make such investigation as may be necessary and shall take steps to prosecute the person or persons whom he believes to be guilty of the offence of p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »