Chennai Court February 1954 Judgments
P.V. Lakshmi Ammal Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad119; (1954)IIMLJ222
ORDERRajagopala ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the owner of a small extent of land of about 28 cents in Tiruvalyaru which is being acquired under the Land Acquisition Act to serve as a play ground and canoe club for the Srinivasa Rao High School at that place. The petitioner object-ed to the acquisition of this bit of land on the ground inter alia that the land sought to be acquired formed a portion of the backyard of her residential house where the drain, the latrine, the cowshed and outhouse and other amenities were situated. The objection was overruled and the necessary notification under Sectionc 6 Land Acquisition. Act has been published and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tanjore, has been appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act. The petitioner was served with a notice under Sections 9(1) and 10, Land Acquisition Act. fixing 10-8-1953 for hearing her objections. The petitioner, thereupon filed an application on 1-8-1953 requesting...
Tag this Judgment!immadi Mahalakshmamma Vs. Immadi Venkatachalamayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad870
Umamaheswaram, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is brought by the first respondent (first defendant) against the judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu J. under Clause15 of the Letters Patent, leave to appeal having been granted by him.2. The short question that falls to be determined in this appeal is whether it is open to the executing court to go behind the terms of the compromise decree, and refuse specific performance on the ground that the performance of the contract would involve hardship within the meaning of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, or on other equitable grounds.3. Under the terms of the compromise decree, which was entered into on 7-8-1935 in O. S. No. 554 of 1932 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenali, the appellant and the second respondent agreed to convey to the first respondent the property situated in Kakarlamudi and Tenali villages and the plaint schedule property for Rs. 400 and Rs. 3000 respectively, and that proper documents would be executed within ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Karnan Vs. Rameswaram Co-operative Stores Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1015
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to call for the records in A. R. C. No. 613 of 1952-53 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Ramanathapuram at Mathu-rai and issue a writ of prohibition or other appropriate direction or order restraining the respondents from taking further proceedings against the petitioner in the said A. R. C. No. 613 of 1952-53.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are shortly these: The petitioner was the President of the Rameswaram Co-operative Stores Ltd., from 19-9-1851 to 4-4-1952. On 30-11-1951 a cash box of the society containing a sum of Rs. 1027-12-4 was found missing. Under by-law 23 (a) of the Society the president of the Society is the Chief Executive Officer of the society under whom all other persons have to work and he is the ex-officio treasurer and has to be in custody of all the properties of the society.3. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies took action against the Socie...
Tag this Judgment!Srikakula Chinna Venkatanarayana and ors. Vs. Pannapati Elias
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1024
ORDERRajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an application for review of the judgment and decree in S. A. No. 1313 of 1949. It was heard and disposed of by me on 26-2-1953. I dismissed it on one short ground, namely, that the appellants were concluded by certain prior proceedings which eventually ended in C. M. S. A. No. 113 of 1943.The material facts are as follows: The respondent filed a suit in the Court of the DistrictMunsif of Nandyal to recover possession of landwhich originally belonged to one Venkatasubbiah,the father of the defendants, who are the appellants in the second appeal. It was sold in execution of the decree in b. Section No. 13 of 1935 on thefile of the same Court and purchased by oneR. Chlnnaramiah on 4-6-1941 in court auction.Chinnaramiah sold the property to the plaintiffrespondent.The suit was brought on the allegation that the plaintiff was put in possession by the court auction purchaser, but the defendants subsequently dispossessed the plaintiff and took possession of t...
Tag this Judgment!Palace theatre Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1954
Reported in: (1954)ILLJ635Mad
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Bombay sitting at Madras, and to quash the same.2. The petitioners are the management of an establishment known as Palace Theatre, Salem. This petitioner along with eleven other talkies houses in Salem had a dispute between themselves and their employees and this dispute was referred to the industrial tribunal at Coimbatore for adjudication. The industrial tribunal made an award on 5 July 1951 and it was accepted by the Government who published it in their official gazette on 17 July 1951. Against this award of the tribunal, the petitioner-management filed an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, appeal No. 292 of 1951. There was also an appeal by the employees which was numbered as appeal No. 246 of 1951, During the pendency of these appeals respondent 2 Govindan, who was on the staff of the establishment of the petitioner's talkies...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Murthy Vs. Commr. for Workmen's Compensation, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1154; 1955CriLJ71; (1954)IILLJ715Mad
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. These two applications arise out of applications made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, to the 6th Presi-dency Magistrate for realisation of the amount directed to be paid by the petitioners under the Payment of Wages Act. When the authority which passed such an order is not a Magistrate, under Section 15(v)(b), Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the amount may be recovered by any Magistrate to whom the authority makes an application in this behalf as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate. The Commissioner has therefore made this application before the Sixth Presidency Magistrate for the recovery of the amount ordered by him as if it were a fine. These two petitions have been filed to quash those proceedings as the Magistrate has Issued a warrant, for the recovery of the amount mentioned. Against an order directing such payment an appeal lies under S. 17 of the Act to the Small Cause Court in the Presidency town of Madras and elsewhere bef...
Tag this Judgment!Hasenbhoy Jetha, Bombay Vs. New India Corporation Ltd., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad435
Umamaheswaram, J. 1. This appeal is brought by the defendants Hasanbhoy Jetha, a firm carrying on business as stockists and suppliers of hardware goods and second-hand machinery in Bombay. The suit was instituted in March 1946 by the respondents herein for recovery of damages of a sum of Rs. 8187-8-0 oil the ground that the appellants firm was guilty of 'breach of contract, breach of condition and breach of warranty and fake representations and assurances as detailed in paras. 4, 5, and 7 of the plaint'. By a subsequent amendment in 1948, the respondents claimed that, they were entitled to the return of the sale consideration of Rs. 11,500 plus the amounts expended by them by way of repairs, or in the alternative to recover damages already claimed by them in the original plaint plus a sum of Its. 858-8-0 spent for repairs on 30-6-1947 making in all Rs. 9046. The appellants herein contended that they were not liable to return the saie consideration, or pay any amount by way of damages, ...
Tag this Judgment!Katragadda China Ramayya Vs. Chiruvella Venkanraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad864
Satyanarayana Rao J. I think the question raised in this case should be decided by a Bench. If it becomes necessary it may have to go even before a Full Bench.A son under the Hindu law is undoubtedly liable for the pre-partition debts of the father which are not immoral or illegal. If a decree, however, is obtained against the father alone, and there is a partition of the family properties, in execution of such a decree, the son's share cannot be seized by the creditor as by reason of the partition the disposing power of the father possessed by him over the son's share under the pious obligation of the son to discharge the father's debts can no longer be exercised. With the partition, the power comes to an end. The liability thereafter can be enforced only in a suit. After partition, the son's share can no longer be treated as property over which the father had a disposing power within the meaning of Section 60, Civil P. C. So much seems to have been settled by the decisions.But in a c...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nookiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad918; (1954)IIMLJ406
1. The first accused in case No. 14 of the Fourth Criminal Sessions of 1953 was charged with two offences, The first was under Section 332, I.P.C., in that he voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant, viz., police constable Masilamani, by injuring him with finger-nails while the accused was in his custody. The second charge was under Section 333 I.P.C., that in the course of the same transaction the accused caused grievous hurt to one Govindaswami, another once constable, while in the discharge of his duties as such public servant by twisting and breaking his left ring finger. So far as the second charge was concerned the jury unanimously found him not guilty.With regard to the first charge, i.e., of an offence under Section 332 I.P.C., for voluntarily causing hurt to Masilamani, the jury were divided in their opinion and as many as six members of the Jury were unable to agree in their conclusions. Such being the case, under Section 305 Clause (4) Crl. P. C. the learned Judge direct...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hameed Sait and anr. Vs. the Provident Investment Co. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad961; (1954)IIMLJ416
1. This is an appeal preferred in the pauper form against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ootacamund in O. S. No. 17 of 1946.2. The facts are : In 1928 the second defendant Mohamed Elias Sait entered into a partition arrangement with four other descendants of one Hajee Abdul Rahiman and the registration copy of the partition deed is Ex. P. 2. This partition deed mentions three earlier family arrangements of the years 1918, 1919 and 1921. In this partition of 1928 items 2 to 7 and 9 to 11 of the plaint schedule were got allotted to the share of the second defendant. This second defendant subsequently acquired items 1 and 8 from his brother Hajee Mohammad Ibrahim Sait.3. On 5-12-1929 the second defendant executed a mortgage deed hypothecating items 1 to 9 in favour of the first defendant company, the Provident Investment Co., Ltd., Bombay, and borrowed Rs. 1,50,000. This mortgage was executed and registered in Bombay. The registration copy of the mortgage deed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »