Chennai Court February 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.
MoidIn Kunhi Beavy and anr. Vs. K. Gopalakrishna Mallya, Minor and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad849; (1953)1MLJ816
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned subordinate Judge of South Kanara in A. S. No. 203 of 1946 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Kasargod in O. S. No, 503 of 1944. 2. The established facts are : The plaintiffs have constructed a shop and a building in 1930 and adjoining their premises there was vacant poromboke land. Defendants have occupied this poromboke land and have put up a building, a portion of which they are using as a coffee hotel. There is no dispute that this was long subsequent to the construction of shop and building by the plaintiffs. In putting up that building, the defendants who are trespassers upon the poromboke property have done the following things. They have interfered with the walls of the plaintiff's shop and building in order to raise their roof. In addition they have so put up their roof that they have practically cut off light and free air which used to enter the plainti...
Kothari and Sons Vs. V. Krishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad726; (1953)1MLJ821
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The defendants, a firm of stock brokers and commission agents, Madras, are the appellants in this second appeal They were sued by the respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 1064-14-0 for damages caused by, their negligence in effecting a sale of 40 shares of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd., hereinafter called the Bank. The shares were of the paid-up value of Rs. 25 each, the face value of which was Rs. 50. The pltff. with a view to have the shares sold, requisitioned the services of the defendants and on 9-5-1938 by Ex. P. 1 the shares were handed over to the defendants. The bank went into liquidation in 1938 and on 10-3-1939 a demand was made on the plaintiff by the liquidators of the bank for payment of the unpaid call money. He thereupon came to know from the defendants by their letter of 20-4-1939 that the shares were in fact sold to the bank. The plaintiff made an unsuccessful attempt in the High Court by an application to have the share register r...
V.M. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. T.A.S.V. Alagammai Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad927; (1953)1MLJ806
Raghava Rao, J. 1. In a suit for recovery of certain money of the plaintiff alleged to have been deposited with defendant 1, defendant 1 pleaded in his written statement that the money deposited with him was really defendant 2's money and not the plaintiff's and that as the money had been deposited on the understanding that the money was to be payable to defendant 2's order, defendant 1 Had already obtained full discharge in respect of the obligation which the plaintiff sought to enforce by the adjustment of the said money between defendant 2 and himself towards the debts due by defendant 2 to defendant 1. There was thereafter an application made to the Court below to enable defendant 1 to avail himself of the third party procedure provided under Order 8-A, Civil P. C. The application having been rejected by the Court below, defendant 1 has come up in revision to this Court.2. Mr. P. S. Chandrasekhara Ayyar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has contended in the first instance that ...
In Re: Gaffar Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad875; (1953)2MLJ96
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the second accused in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1953 for quashing the order of committal regarding him. He prayed to the office for posting the petition today 'before me, for hearing and disposal before I began to hear the Sessions Case. The office has, in view of the decision in -- 'Emperor v. Huseinalli Vilayatalli', AIR 1942 Bom 212 (A), and other cases, felt a doubt whether a Judge of the High Court presiding over the High Court Criminal Sessions, having in that capacity no appellate or revisional jurisdiction, has jurisdiction to hear and dispose of such a petition for quashing a committal like this. It thinks such a petition can only be moved on the appellate side of the High Court, and has referred Mr. Vaz, learned counsel for the 2nd accused, to move it in the Admission Court. At the instance of Mr. Vaz, it has posted the petition before me for final orders.Mr. Vaz urges that this Court has jurisdiction, and relies on the ruling ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›