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.
Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad764; 1953(I)MPLJ620
1. Under the orders of Krishnaswami Naidu J. on Appln. No. 1170 of 1951, the Board of Revenue, Madras, as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, submitted a statement of the case under Section 57) Stamp Act, (Act 2 of 1899). The question for determination is the liability of the document, executed on 22-3-1948 by the Crompton Engineering Co. (Madras) Ltd., (referred to as the Borrower) to Best and Co., Ltd., (referred to as the company in the document), to be stamped as a mortgage deed under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.2. The clauses of that document dated 22-3-1948 relevant for the determination of this question ran:"Clause 1: That the whole of the Borrower's floating assets .........and comprising lands, buildings and premises bearing door No. 27, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Madras, together with the electrical installation, plants, and machinery, furniture and fittings, office and transport vehicles, loose tools, book debts, imprest cash with employees, investments, interes...
Dandigunta Venkataramaiah (Minor) and anr. Vs. Dandigunta Audinarayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad929; (1953)2MLJ177
Rajamannar, C.J.1. For a disposal of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Panchapakesa Ayyar J. dismissing a second appeal, S. A. No. 255 of 1946, it is sufficient to state the following facts :In execution of a decree in a suit on a mortgage executed by the father of the two appellants to respondent 3, the mortgaged property was brought to sale and eventually on 7-12-1936 purchased by the mortgagee-decreoholder, respondent 3. To the mortgage suit, defendant 1, the father (the executant) and one of his sons, defendant 2 in the present suit-, were added as parties. The two plaintiffs-appellants in this second appeal, had not been bom by that time. Plaintiff 1 was born on 1-9-1932, long after the decree in the suit. Plaintiff 2 was born on 1-9-1935 during execution proceedings. The plaintiffs were not brought on record in the execution proceedings, presumably because their father deft. 1, sufficiently & adequately represented their interests. Though t...
Public Prosecutor Vs. C. Paramasivam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad917; (1953)2MLJ189
1. On 1-1-1952 a consignment of illicit opium was despatched by train from New Delhi to Madras and from Madras on to Chidambaram. Acting on some information that he had received, Mr. Khadir Hussain, an Assistant Inspector of Excise who was also a Deputy Prohibition Officer, shadowed the article to Chidambaram. On 5-1-1952 one Paramasivam went to the railway parcel office at Chidambaram, tendered the way bill to the General Parcel Clerk and after signing in the delivery book took delivery of the parcel. At that stage Mr. Khadir Hussain detained him and questioned him. He also seized the parcel which, on examination, was found to contain 33 seers of opium.2. On these allegations Paramasivam and three others were prosecuted before the Sub-Magistrate, Chidambaram. At the trial Mr. Khadir Hussain gave evidence for the prosecution. When he was in the box the Assistant Public. Prosecutor asked him what Paramasivam had told him when questioned by the witness after his arrest. To that question ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›