Chennai Court March 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: D. Rajamannar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad746; (1953)IMLJ676
1. This was referred by one of us to a Bench pf two Judges in view of the importance of the question raised. The facts are fully stated In the order of reference and it is not necessary to restate them in detail.2. O S. No. 45 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor was instituted by two of the daughter's sons of one Chen-chiah as presumptive reversioners to his estate for a declaration that the compromise decree In O. S. No. 10 of 1944 is not binding on the reversioners and for the appointment of a receiver to the estate of late Chenchiah to manage his properties and to prevent waste. The suit was dismissed and the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The Master held that Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the Suits Valuation Act and Article 1 of Sen I, Court-fees Act applied to the first relief and' that court-fee should be paid 'ad valorem' on the value of the property i.e., the subject-matter of the decree. A Bench of this Court consisting of Rajamannar C.J. and V...
V.T.C. Chengama Naidu Vs. Velayudha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad930; (1953)2MLJ183
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by a court-auction purchaser against an order by the learned District Judge of Chingleput directing him to pay mesne profits of Rs. 2914-8-6 to the judgment debtors in O. S. No. 6 of 1929. In execution of a mortgage decree in this suit for Rs. 18000 on a principal of about Rs. 11000 about 12 acres of land were brought to sale and purchased by the appellant for Rs. 4411 on 4-8-1937. An application, M. P. No. 453 of 1937 was made under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. for setting aside the court sale. During its pendency Act 4 of 1938 was passed and an application was made by the debtors under Section 19 to scale down the decree debt. M. P. No. 453 of 1937 was first heard and dismissed on 20-12-1940, and the court sale in favour of the appellant was confirmed whereupon he took possession through Court on 18-1-1941. The judgment-debtors filed an appeal, C. M. A. No. 10 of 1941. This was allowed in July 1942 by Wadsworth and Fatanjali Sastri JJ. and the order con...
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad276; [1953]23CompCas139(Mad); (1953)2MLJ94
Manaswami Goundar, J. 1. These are applications praying that the time for the placing of the Balance sheet and Profit and Loss account of the applicant company Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited before the general meeting under Section 131(1), Companies Act, be extended by three months or to direct under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, the respondent to both the applications, to exercise the powers conferred upon him and extend the time. The above company was incorporated on 1-11-1951 for the purpose of taking over of the entire assets in the Indian Union of Dalmia Cement Limited and accordingly took over all the shares of the said Dalmia Cement Limited and issued its own shares in lieu thereof, as a part of a scheme of amalgamation. It is alleged that though the share-holders of Dalmia Cement Limited were duly notified, they took their own time to surrender their share certificates in exchange for corresponding share certificates in the applicant c...
Pulimarathinkeel Katheesa and anr. Vs. Puthiapurayil Assema (Died) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad836; (1953)1MLJ805
Ramaswami, J.1. The short point for determination in this second appeal is whether with regard to a pre-1929 compromise which has been 'recorded' and which covered the property involved in the suit, the compromise should have been registered. In my opinion, there are two good reasons why it need not be registered. First of all, the compromise itself is of the year 1927. Section 17(vi), Registration Act was amended by Act 21 of 1929 and for the words 'and any award' the following words 'except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding' were substituted. This amendment has no retrospective effect. Secondly, I have just mentioned that the property which is the subject-matter of. the compromise is also the subject-matter of the suit. It has been held by this Court in -- 'Annapurnamma v. P.L. Swami : AIR1949Mad245 relying on a prior decision in --'Ranganayaki Ammal v. Sampath...
Minakshi Mills, Ltd. Vs. the Labour Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1953
Reported in: (1953)ILLJ326Mad
1. This is an appeal by the Minakshi Mills, Ltd., Madurai, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the, judgment of Subba Rao, J., dismissing an application made by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorarai to call for the records and proceedings relating to appeal No. 119 of 1951 before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, and to quash its decision in the said appeal, dated 6 September 1951.2. The facts and events which led up to that application are as follows; On 7 December 1949 the Government of Madras by its order Ms. No. 5793, referred the industrial dispute which had arisen between the workers and the managements of the Minakshi Mills, Ltd., Madurai, in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to that order for adjudication to the industrial tribunal having its place of sitting at Madurai. The matters mentioned in the annexure included the payment of full wages for the third Shift from 1 April 1949, introduction of the system of three eight-hour shifts wit...
Abdul Rahman Sahib Vs. Muhammad Siddig and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad781; (1953)IMLJ795
1. The facts leading up to these revisions are these : The petitioner filed O. S. No. 154 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli to recover possession of immoveable property. He also claimed mesne profits. There was also a prayer for injunction. The defendants contested the claim. While the suit was pending the parties agreed to refer the matters in dispute between them in the suit and various other matters as well to arbitration and on 14-10-1945 they executed a muchilika in favour of five named arbitrators containing 'inter alia' the following statement:"We two parties shall accept the decision of the panchayatdars regarding the said suits and asset; etc."In pursuance of this reference the panchayatdars pronounced an award on 18-11-1945, Ex. P. 2 and applied under Section 14 (2), Arbitration Act, to file the same into Court, I, A. No. 1627 of 1945. The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the award applied to set it aside under Ss. 30 and 33 of the Act...
Palani Sri Dandayuthapani Devasthanam Through Its Executive Officer Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad89; (1953)2MLJ454
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point as to the application of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act to debts due & owing to a religious institution like Sri Dandayuthpani Devasthanam, Palani, which is the creditor in this case. Two brothers Sheikh Muhammad Rowther and Kadir Muhammad Rowther who were entitled to half a share each in certain lands mortgaged them to the Devasthanam under two usufructuary mortgages, the mortgage by Sheikh Muhammad Rowther being for Rs. 22,000 on 14-12-1922 and that by the younger brother Kadir Muhammad Rowther being for Rs. 14,000 on 13-8-1923. In execution of a money decree against Sheikh Muhammad Rowther the equity of redemption in half of the mortgaged properties was brought to sate and it was purchased by one Ramaswami Nicker. The purchaser paid on 21-7-1943 the amount due on the earlier of the two mortgages, viz., Rs, 22,000 to the Devastanam and discharged the same. After the sale the Devasthanam instituted a suit in O. S...
Chennupati Venkatasubbamma Vs. Nelluri Narayanaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad215
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff, who is the sole respondent, instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration of his title to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the properties.2. The plaintiff is the grandson of one Panaya. Plaintiff's father is Subbaiah. Panaya had a brother Veerayah who had no sons but had four daughters. One of the daughters was married to one Nallamuthu Ramachandriah who, after his marriage lived practically as an iliatom son-in-law in the house of Veerayah. The houses of Panaya and Veerayah formed portions of the same house. Veerayah by a gift deed, Ex. A-7, dated 11-6-1918 gifted away items 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule to Ramachandriah, his son-in-law, and the fifth item in the plaint schedule was acquired by Ramachandriah Under Ex. A-8 dated 8-8-1922. For a long time, Rama...
Biyyala Chinna Narasamma Vs. Biyyala Venkata Narasi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad282; (1953)2MLJ695
Mack, J. 1. This batch of appeals arise out of a remand by the learned Subordinate Judge of Kurnool of two suits filed by the plaintiff one Venkatanarasa Reddi for dissolution of two partnerships entered into by his deceased younger brother, Hanumantha Reddi who died in February 1947. Hanumantha Reddi who is said to have been educated entered into partnerships with third parties to trade in timber and bamboos. Alleging that he and his younger brother constituted a Joint family at the time of the latter's death, Venkata-narasa Reddi filed these two suits, O. S. Nos. 130 of 1947 and 131 of 1947 in which he impleaded the partners of the businesses and Hanumantha Reddi's widow. Narasanima as defendants. The District Munsif dismissed the two suits holding that Venkatanarasa Reddi and Hanumantha Reddi were divided in status from 1938 and that the suits were not maintainable. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that Venkatanarasa Reddi and Hanumantha Reddi continued to be joint and t...
James Manickam Vs. Jaya Narayan Daga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad767; (1953)IMLJ825
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the defendant against the order of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, refusing to extend time for leave to appear and defend the suit instituted by the respondent under the summary provisions of Order 37, Civil P. C. The suit was laid for the recovery of Rs. 1905 due on a promissory note executed by the defendant for Rs. 6000 on 4-6-1951. The suit amount was claimed after giving credit for Rs. 4700 paid by the defendant on various dates subsequent to the execution of the promissory cote. Summons was issued in form No. 4 in Appendix B of the Civil Procedure Code, and the defendant was called upon to obtain leave to appear and defend within ten days from the service of the summons, if need be. Although the defendant filed a 'Vakalat' on 29-1-1952, he did not make an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. He merely filed a written statement on 13-3-1952.2. When the suit came on for hearing on that date, the plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »