Chennai Court May 1953 Judgments
P.G. Brookes, Receiver Appointed by the Trustees for the Mortgagee Deb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad369; [1953]23CompCas351(Mad); (1953)IILLJ1Mad; (1953)IIMLJ630
1. This is an application under Art. 236 of the Constitution of India for issuing to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, a 'writ of certiorari' calling for the records in I. A. No. 32 of 1953 and for quashing the same.2. The Madras Electric Tramways (1904) Ltd., hereinafter called the "Company" was. constituted to serve the City of Madras with a tramway system. By an indenture dated 13-10-1924 and two subsequent supplemental deeds dated 26th March 1923 and 6th July 1950 respectively, all the properties and assets immoveable and moveable and the undertaking of the company were mortgaged and charged to the Beaver Trust Ltd., being the trustees for the debenture holders of the Company to secure the repayment of all principal moneys and interest due on debentures. The said tramway undertaking was notified by the Government as a public utility service.By G. O. No. 5555 dated 30th December 1952 the following disputes between the company and its workmen were referred to the industrial Tribunal, ...
Tag this Judgment!Prattipati Dandaiah and anr. Vs. Nori Venkatrama Dikshitulu, Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad500; (1953)IIMLJ550
1. This civil revision petition and the Writ petition arise out of the same order.2. The facts are: In Vatticherukur village ill Guntur taluk, there is a temple known as Sri Brahmeswaraswami temple. The archaka of this temple was Prattipati Dandaiah. He seems to have been practically managing or more appropriately mismanaging the affairs of this temple and the Hindu Religious Endowments Board has intervened. From the order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Annexure to order No. 8870 dated 18-11-1949, it appears that this archaka has been dismissed from service. The Board has appointed as the managing trustee of this temple Sri Nori Venkatrama Dikshitalu in its order No. 1943 dated 5-7-1947. The dismissed archaka who has been managing the properties claimed as the endowments of the temple refused to hand over possession of the properties to the deity by its managing trustee.Then two sets of proceedings had arisen. The managing trustee filed O. P. No. 149 of 1949 before the Distri...
Tag this Judgment!The University of Madras by the Registrar Vs. Shantha Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad67; (1953)IIMLJ287
1. This is an appeal by the University of Madras against the judgment of Subba Rao J. in W.P. No. 341 of 1951 and the point for determination is whether the directions issued by the appellant to the affiliated colleges not to admit girl students without obtaining the permission of the Syndicate are valid. For a correct appreciation of the true scope and significance of those directions, it is necessary to state the conditions under which they came to be given. Until recently, the number of girl students who sought higher education in the colleges was inconsiderable and the women's colleges that were in existence were quite ample to provide for their needs. Latterly there has been a large increase in their number and as the existing women-colleges were not sufficient to accommodate them, colleges which were admitting only boys also began to admit girls. Co-education became so general that by 1943 the Syndicate considered it desirable to frame certain rules for regulating the admission o...
Tag this Judgment!Khata Chinna Eswarareddi and ors. Vs. Kukkala Reddigari Venkatachelamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad83; (1953)2MLJ467
Mack, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the order of the learned District Judge remanding for fresh disposal a suit dismissed.by the Civil and Sessions Judge of Banganapalle as being barred by limitation under Article 91, Limitation Act. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of a house and some lands which he had himself conveyed by registered sale deed dated 29-2-1936 in the name of the first defendant who was a minor son of his maternal uncle Bali Reddi, the third defendant. The plaint alleged that this sale deed was a sham, nominal and fraudulent document which was never intended to pass title. The averments in the plaint contained an admission that the defendants entered into possession of the house and lands, that criminal litigation resulted and that in the result defendants have been in possession at any rate since 1938. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff explains his delay in suing as being due to the defendants saying that they would compromise the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Chettiar and ors. Vs. Raman Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad97; (1953)2MLJ405
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Pudukottah allowing an application by the judgment-debtors under Sections 47 and 151, Civil P. C. and holding that they were not liable to' pay interest of Rs. 2846-11-0 for the period 8-12-941 to31-3-1947 by virtue of the Accrual of Interest War time Adjustment Act (Burma Act 11 of 1947). The suit was one for recovery of monies deposited with the defendants in Burma admittedly many years ago. Section 3 of the Burma Act 11 of 1947 runs as follows:'Notwithstanding: anything contained in any other law for the time being in, force, or in any contract of loan or mortgage deed, no interest shall accrue, or be payable, upon any loan or mortgage other than usufructuary mortgage made in Burma before the 5th day of May 1942 for or in respect of the period which falls within the 8th day of December 1941 and the date on which the provisions of Section 7 of the, Courts '(Emergency Provisi...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gopalakrishna Vs. the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad362; (1953)1MLJ744
ORDERVenkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification of the Government of Madras dated 22-1-1953 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land proposed to be acquired is a vacant site of the extent of about 1 acre and 39 cents situated in the village of Pithapuram. Just to the north of this plot is a market where weekly shandies are held. The market is bounded on the east by a public road and on the north and west by a channel called 'The Cherugula kalvai'. If the market is to expand, it can be only on the south. The Maharajah of Pithapuram to whom the site belonged offered it for sale in the year 1945. On 15-3-1945 the Panchayat Board of Pithapuram passed resolution No. 74 to acquire it from the Maharajah by private sale for the purpose of the market. As the negotiations did not make much of a progress, a further resolution No. 53 was passed on 17-6-1948 requesting the Maharaj...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S. Panchapakesa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad396
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This petition is by the first accused in C. C. No. 187 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mayuram. He and two others were charged by the Textile Control Officer for contravention of the provisions of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, Clause 24(1) read with Clause 10 of the Madras Cloth (Dealers) Control Order, 1948, which are punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. They were charged on two counts (1) for selling cloths at a higher price, and (2) for not issuing a bill in accordance with Clause 9 of the conditions of the licence. They were acquitted on the first count but on the second count, the first and third accused were convicted; the second accused being a partner and not a licensee was acquitted. The first accused is a licensee and proprietor of a shop called 'Ram-kesh', Silk Emporium, Mayuram. The third accused is a clerk employed by the first accused and a salesman in the shop.P...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of S.R. No. 8238 of 1953
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad974; (1953)IIMLJ282
Ramaswami, J.1. The main question that arises for consideration in this matter is whether under the Drugs Act 23 of 1940, an aggrieved party has a right to prefer a civil miscellaneous appeal in the High Court against an order of the Drugs Controller of India cancelling the import licence granted to him.2. Rule 29 of the Drugs Rules, 1945, framed under Section 12 of the Drugs Act (Central Act 23 of 1940) empowers the licensing authority to suspend or cancel in certain cases the import licence granted, provided that the person aggrieved by such cancellation or suspension may within three months from the date of the order appeal to the District Judge of the District in which the right of appeal accrues or if there is no District Judge of the District such judicial officer as the Central Government may appoint in this behalf having jurisdiction and his decision shall be final.3. The appellant has chosen the High Court as the proper forum for preferring the civil miscellaneous appeal. But ...
Tag this Judgment!Selva Alias G. Sarangapani Chettiar Vs. C.L. Aravamudha Iyengar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad969; (1953)2MLJ293
ORDERVenkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This is an application for the issue? of a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in O. P. No. 93 of 1952. On 16-9-1952 there was a general election of members to the Municipality of Kumbakonam and in that election both the petitioner and respondent 1 were returned as Councillors. The term of the now Councillors was to commence on 1-11-1952. On that date the office of both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Municipality was vacant and accordingly the Revenue Divisional Officer, acting under the provisions of Section 12(7), District Municipalities Act, issued a notice, Ex. A convening a meeting of the Councillors for election of Chairman at 4 p. m. on 12-11-1952. At the same time he issued another notice, Ex. A-2 convening a meeting of the Councillors at 6 p. m. on the same date for the election of Vice-Chairman. The Councillors duly met on 12-11-1952 at 4 p. m. and elected a Chairman. At 6 p.m. all of them...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›