Chennai Court April 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.
Madathil Ahmed Haji Vs. Muthana Kunhirama Kurup and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad360; (1953)1MLJ665
1. All these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution raise a common question of law as to the validity of certain rules made by the Government under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, and published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated nth September 1952 in so far as they provided for open voting at elections to certain Panchayats.2. The Madras Village Panchayats Act provides for the constitution for each village in the State of Madras a, Panchayat (Section 4(1)). Ths Panchayats are classified into two classes called class I and Class II. Panchayats with jurisdiction over a population estimated at not less than five thousand and with an estimated annual income of not less than ten thousand rupees come under Class I. The other panchayats fall within class II (Section 5(1)(a) and (b)). The power of classification is with the Government, who may from time to time alter the classification of any panchayat. Any decision made by the Government regarding classification cannot ...
In Re: Govindaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad401; (1954)IMLJ455
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This petition is by the accused who has been convicted (or an offence under Section 408, I. P. C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine Rs. 200.2. The petitioner was a bill collector in the Tiruchirapalli Municipality and as such he was charged with having collected taxes to the tune of Rs. 1935-4-10 and having misappropriated the same. He was charged under Section 408, I. P. C. and convicted of that offence. There can be no doubt that the bill collector is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21, I. P. C. as is clear from Section 358 of the District Municipalities Act. The Additional First Class Magistrate should undoubtedly have framed a charge under Section 409, I. P. C. and convicted him. However the fact that he framed charge for a lesser offence cannot be said to have caused prejudice to the accused as he only had the benefit of defending on a minor offence. But the point that is taken before me by Mr. Sitarama Aiyar is ...
In Re: C. Kanaran Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1349; (1954)IIMLJ225
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Tellicherry under Section 438(1), Cr. P.C., asking this Court to set aside the order of acquittal passed in C. C. No. 92 of 1952 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode. The accused in the case was the third defendant in O. S. No. 802 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif of Nadapuram. On 3-3-1951 the suit was decreed against him. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced, the accused behaved in a very disorderly manner and used abusive and filthy language against the District Munsif for having decreed the suit. The District Munsif was unable to proceed with the work on account of the disturbance created by the accused and with a view to take action under Section 480, Cr. P.C., he directed the Bench Clerk to ask the two peons on duty to apprehend the accused and have him brought before the court. But he could not be apprehended as he disappeared from the court very soon after the disturbance.T...
In Re: K.T. Pappanna Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad96; (1953)2MLJ409
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. During the year 1948-1949 the petitioner Pappanna Rowther manufactured various quantities of Jaggery which he consigned to Kathar Nadar and Co., Madura. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that Kathar Nadar was only a commission agent, that there was no sale by Pappanna Rowther of the jaggery that he produced to Kathar Nadar and that there was only one sale, name-ly, by Kathar Nadar, to outsiders. The petitioner failed to submit for the year 1948-1949 the 'A' return prescribed by rules 6 and 11 of the General Sales-tax (Turnover and Assessment Rules) before 1st April 1949. For this omission, he was prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 190 by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Dindigul.2. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that Kathar Nadar and Co. had included all the transactions of the petitioner in their turnover, and therefore, the petitioner Pappanna Rowther was not bound to submit the return. This argument canno...
S. Raja Chetty Vs. Khiaram Kushiram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad272; (1953)2MLJ523
Govinda Menon, J.1. The only question which has been argued by Mr. Rajagopalan, for the appellant is that thereis no proof in the case that an act of insolvency has been committed by the petitioner and, there fore, the adjudication ought not to have been, made. On 4-8-1952 the learned Insolvency Judge in an order granting time to the appellant to pay the debt due to the petitioning creditor states as follows: 'This is a petition to adjudge the debtor insolvent on the ground that he allowed the attachment in execution of a decree obtained against him by the petitioning creditor to continue in respect of a sum of Rs. 27. The fact is not disputed.' The learned Judge eventually granted time to the insolvent and when the matter came up afresh before him on 3-11-1952. it was found that the debtor alone appeared and was not represented by counsel. The debtor requested for further time praying that he wanted to sell some properties and find some money. But the learned Judge was not satisfied t...
In Re: Kasi Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad263; (1953)2MLJ687
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This revision is against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruchira-palli, dismissing the petitioner's appeal, preferred against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the Sub-Magistrate of Tiruchi-rapalli for an offence under Section 82, Motor Vehicles Act.2. The petitioner was a conductor in charge of bus No. MDW 2772, which was proceeding on 28-6-1951 from Dindigul to Tiruchirapalli. At Ramjinagar, a place 6 miles from Tiruchirapalli, the petitioner was travelling on the tunning foot-board of the bus at about 7-5 p.m. andthis was noted by H. C. 386. A complaint was laid under Section 82, Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 112 of the same Act. The finding of the first Court is that he was found standing on the foot-board of the bus by the H. C., who was examined as P. W. 1 and also by another independent witness, P. W. 2, which finding of fact has also been accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in appeal.The argument on behalf...
N.C. Ramanatha Iyer, President, Nurani Grama Jana Sabha Nurani Village ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad492
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant as the President of the Nurani Grama Jana Sabha, Nurani, in Palghat seeks to set aside under Section 84(3) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, an order of the District Judge of South Malabar, holding that the three' temples situated in that village are institutions to which the Act applies. The learned District Judge has set out the history of the institutions and his findings regarding certain aspects were not seriously, canvassed before us. Ke expressed the opinion that the temples in question belong to the Nurani Grama Samuham consisting of the Nurani villagers, who manage the affairs of the temple by an elected committee.2. On behalf of the Endowments Board, the respondent in this appeal, this conclusion is not controverted, and it, therefore, becomes unnecessary to trace the history of the institutions and how they are being managed. That the Nurani Grama Samuham consists of a fluctuating body of villagers who are competent to hold and o...
In Re: T.K. Ratna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad926; (1953)2MLJ278
Rajamannar, C.J.1. An appeal is sought to be preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order of Subba Rao J. refusing to transfer O. S. No. 20 of 1951 from the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, to the Original Side of this Court to be heard along with a suit pending on the file of this Court, and staying the suit on the file of this Court until the disposal of the suit in the City Civil Court.2. On the authorities, it is clear that the appeal is not maintainable. Neither the order refusing to transfer a suit from the file of the City Civil Court to this Court, nor an order staying a suit pending in this Court is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. See -- 'Narasa Reddi v. Tar Mahommed', AIR 1928 Mad 209 (A) and --'L. P. A. No. 74 of 1950 (Mad)' (B).3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a ruling in -- 'Krishna Reddi v. Thanikachala Mudali', AIR 1924 Mad 90 (C) in which it was held that an order transferring a suit from the f...
In Re: M.M. Abdul Khader, Advocate, High Court of Travancore-cochin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad78; (1953)2MLJ457
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petitioner is an advocate of the Travancore-Cochin High Court. He seeks to be enrolled as an advocate of this High Court. The only question in this application is whether he is liable to pay the stamp duty under item 25 of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in Madras which runs as follows :'Entry as an Advocate, Vakil or attorney on the roll of any High Court under the Indian Bar Council Act, 1926, or in exercise of powers conferred on such Court by Letters Patent or by the Legal Practitioners Act, 1884--(a) in the case of an Advocateor vakil : Six hundred and twenty-fiverupeesin the case of an attorney : Threehundred and twenty-fiverupees, eight annas.' There is an exemption to this provision which runs as follows :'Entry of an advocate, vakil or attorney on the roll of any High Court, when he has previously been enrolled in a High Court.' Item 25 of the Act as amended corresponds to item 30 of the main Act.2. The petitioner contends that as he had been previously ...
Santhanakrishna Odayar Vs. Vaithilingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad51; (1953)2MLJ325
1. The question that arises for decision in these petitions is the validity of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal (Protection) Ordinance 4 of 1952 which was modified by Ordinances 5 and 6 of 1952 and ultimately replaced by Act 14 of 1952.The petitioners are Mirasdars or land owners in the District of Tanjore and these are applications by them under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari to quash various orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer acting under the provisions of the Ordinance and Act aforesaid. W. P. No. 859 of 1952 and 78 of 1953 are against orders passed under Section 6 of the Act directing the reinstatement of tenants; W. P. No. 875 of 1952 in against refusal to pass an order in ejectment under Section 10 of the Act; W. P. No. 788 of 1952 is against an order awarding compensation under Section 12(4) of the Act; and W. P. Nos. 880 of 1952 and 6 of 1953 are against orders adjudicating disputes between landlords and tenants under Section 13 of the Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »