Chennai Court December 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.
Pethaperumal Ambalam Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar, Minor Through Property ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad760; (1954)IMLJ585
1. This second appeal has been referred to a Bench at the instance of Ramaswami J. for the reason that the case raised a point as to the legal effect of the death of a judgment-debtor after the issue of a sale certificate, but before the auetion-purchaser obtains delivery of possession by proclamation and affixture under Order 21 Rule 96, C.P.C. which is not covered by authority.2. One Uthandarayan Ambalam was originally the owner of the properties in suit and the plaintiff's paternal grandfather, Chidamabaram Chettiar had a money claim against him. Before a suit could be filed for the realisation of the dues. Uthandarayan died in September 1924, leaving a widow, Meenakshi and his mother Alagu who are stated to have entered into possession of these properties. Therefore Chidambaram Chettiar filed O.S. No. 457 Of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, for the recovery of the moneys due to him impleading Meenakshi and Alagu as defendants, obtained a decree, attached a...
R.M. Seshadri Vs. Second Addl. Income-tax Officer, Salaries Circle, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad806; [1954]25ITR400(Mad)
1. The petition was argued by the petitioner in person with considerable ability and learning. He prayed in the petition that this court should issue an order or direction to the respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, to refund the sum of Rs. 100 paid by the petitioner as fee under Section 33(3), Income-tax Act, and to declare under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that the portion of Section 33 (3) relating to payment of fee is illegal.2. In the affidavit in support of the petition It was stated that the petitioner was assessed to income-tax in respect of his personal income by the Second Additional Income-tax Officer, Salaries Circle, Madras, on the dividend warrants received by him from agricultural companies. He preferred an appeal against that assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who how- ever confirmed the decision of the Income-tax Officer. There was a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. As required by Sub-section...
P.K. Kesavan Nair Vs. C.K. Babu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad892; (1954)IIMLJ149
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a civil revision petition which has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H. R. A. NO. 490 of 1952, confirming the order of the Chief Rent Controller in H. R. C. No. 3075 of 1952.2. The facts are: The respondent herein has constructed an automobile factory at No. 230 Tiruvottiyur High Road, Tondiarpet, Madras. In front of the premises, there is a small room measuring 15 feet by 12 feet which is now in the occupation of the petitioner, Kesavan Nair. This factory has been built at a cost of about six or seven lakhs of rupees and machinery have been shifted from Calicut where he was carrying on his business in the name and style of Malabar Fisheries.The application by the respondent to the Corporation of Madras for the issue of the necessary licence to run the factory was refused on the ground that the room in the front portion of the factory was in the occupation of some person and that the kacha roofi...
K.N. Padmanabha Ayyar Vs. State of Madras and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1953
Reported in: (1954)ILLJ469Mad
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. By G.O. Ms. No. 397, dated 28 January 1953, of the Development Department the Government of Madras, in exercise of the powers con ferred by Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal having its place of sitting at Madras the industrial dispute between the workers and management of Messrs. Lakshmi Cafe, Madras, and this application is for a writ of certiorari to quash that order on the ground that at the time the reference was made there was no industrial dispute existing and that therefore the reference was without jurisdiction. The annexure to this Government order contains the several matters in dispute of which item 6 was not in existence when the conciliation took place. The six matters in dispute referred to in the annexure are the following:(1) Fixation of scales of wages for different categories of employees.(2) Fixation of the quantum of dearness allowance in the place of boarding and lodg...
In Re: Subbaraya Setty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1237
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1.This Is a revision against an order passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Kadiri in C. C. No. 2044 of 1952 under the following circumstances. The prosecution witnesses were heard and a charge was framed against the accused. After the framing of the charge the magistrate who heard the witnesses went on leave for two months. Another Magistrate succeeded him and before him an application under Section 350, Criminal P.C. was filed for the resummoning of the prosecution witnesses who had already been examined for the purpose of rehearing them. But before they could be heard the new Magistrate was transferred and he was succeeded by the original Magistrate who was reposted and as he had heard. the witnesses and had framed a charge against the accused he refused, to resummon the witnesses who had already been summoned by the interim Magistrate who was there for a short period. The question is whether his refusal to resummon the witnesses and rehear them is proper and whether ...
S.E. Abdul Ghafoor Sahib Vs. A.M. Abdul Salam Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad93
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are five connected civil revision petitions filed against the decrees and Judgment of the learned District Munsif of Vellore in S. C. S. Nos. 1003 to 1007 of 1950.2. The facts are: The petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants of five shops belonging to the petitioner in Dhoranam-pet, Gudiysttam taluk. These shops were not electrified and at the requests of the tenants they were electrified at a considerable expense by the landlord and the landlord entered into the following agreement dated 1-2-1947 reproduced below:'Agreement in respect of rent and electrical charges' etc. executed on the 1st day of February 1947 in favour of S.E. Abdul Gafoor Sahib, son of S. Yousuf Sahib, residing at Aliar Street, Dhoranampet, Gudiyattam Taluk, by A.M. Abdul Salam Sahib, son of A.U. Mathar Sahib, residing at the aforesaid street, Pettai and town to the following effect: I had been paying till now rent for the shop, at a sum of annas seven, Re. 0-7-0 pe...
In Re: Perumal Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1654
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The three petitioners in this case were the three accused in B. C. No. 660 of 1952 on the file of the First Class Bench Court of Erode. They have been convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. The first two petitioners have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each, and the third petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 40.2. The case against them was that the third petitioner, Ramaswami Goundan, beat the complainant, Palaniswami Goundan, with a stick on his refusing to pay a tax for running the 'Pavoo' in the usual 'pavidi'. The beating was said to have been at the instigation of the second petitioner. There was nothing alleged against the first petitioner regarding the beating. He was simply said to have removed the crowbar to which the 'pavoo' rope was tied, as the tax was not paid. That, of course, has nothing to do with the beating.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners urged two main contentions. The first was that the convictions and sentences were all ill...
P.B. Kalahasti Chetty Vs. Commr. of Police, Egmore, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad736; (1954)IMLJ557
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. On 1-11-1951 the petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, for a licence to conduct the business in auction sale of pledged jewels, etc. with the mortgagees, under the name & style of Bharat and Co., at premises No. 69 Perumal Mudall Street, Sowcarpet, Madras. In that application he stated that he is a landlord paying property tax of Rs. 1147-14-0 to the Corporation of Madras. A reply was sent by the Commissioner on 19-12-1951 stating that permission was refused as the premises was reported to be unsuitable. Again the petitioner filed another application wherein he stated that the premises 15 situated in a very busy locality which is in the heart and centre of the business in the City and is an ideal place for conducting transactions of the nature for which permission was asked for. Under the circumstances he prayed that the order refusing approval may be reviewed. The reply to this letter dated 9-4-1952 is as follows:'Premises No. 69 Perum...
Gudur Ramakrishna Reddi Vs. Minor Muniratnammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad890
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted on 24-9-1947 by the appellant for the recovery of money alleged to be due under a mortgage deed dated 13-5-1953 executed by one Kannamrnal, the deceased mother of the first defendant and wife of the second defendant in favour of the deceased father of the plaintiff. The only Question with which we are now concerned is whether the suit brought more than 12 years after the date of the mortgage is saved from the bar of limitation under Section 20(2) of the Limitation Act by reason of the fact that the mortgagee was put in possession of the mortgaged property. The property mortgaged is a house. There is a stipulation in the mortgage deed that the rent from the house should be adjusted towards the interest due and payable on the mortgage. Both the Courts have held that the suit is barred by limitation, because Section 20(2) would not be of any assistance to the plaintiff.That sub-section runs thus:"Where mortgaged land is in the possessi...
Allakrishnaveni Alias Venkayamm Vs. Alla Brahmareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad762
Mack, J.1. Appellant Krishnaveni appeals against tile dissolution of her marriage by the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur in his order dated 27-2-1951 on a petition filed by her husband on 4-10-1950 when she was only 17 years old. She was born according to her admitted birth register extract Ex. A. 1 on 24-9-1933. The petition was founded on Section 5 (1) (b) and (c) of Madras Act 6 of 1949. It may be here convenient to set out Section 5 (1) (a), (b) and (c).'Section 5 (1) (a). That the other party, if a husband, has any other woman as a concubine. (b) that the other party, if a wife, is a concubine of any other man or leads the life of a prostitute or (c) that the other party has, without just cause deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition,' 2. The learned Subordinate Judge, though he framed one point for determination as to whether Krishnaveni was a concubine of any other man or was leading ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »