Chennai Court February 1954 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.
Chaparala Krishna Brahmam Vs. Guduru Govardhanaiah. February 3, 1954.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1954
Reported in: [1953]23ITR407(Mad); (1954)IIMLJ332
ORDERThe petitioner is the first accused in P. R. C. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1953 and C. C. No. 8 1953 on the file of the Stipendiary 1 Class Magistrate, Guntur. The complainant in all these cases is one Guduru Govardhanaiah who was a partner of the accused in a firm called Chaparala Krishna Brahmam & Co., Guntur. The substance of the allegations made by the complainant in P. R. C. No. 1 of 1953 is this. The partners in the firm fell out and there was litigation between them in the civil courts in Guntur. With a view to cause loss to the complainant the accused prepared false accounts. He also filed before the Income-tax Officer a form bearing the date 4th February, 1952, for the renewal of the registration of the firm. That form is a forged one. In order to fasten responsibility for his false accounts and also liability to income-tax on P. W. 1 and the complainant, the accused probably antedated some renewal form, signatures on which of the complainant and P. W. 1 may have been obtained by th...
Padmaraju Konetiraju Vs. Padmaraju Subbaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1019
ORDER1. In February 1953 one Padmaraju Konetiraju filed a petition under Section 145, Criminal P. C., before the Additional First Class Magis-trate, Chandragiri, and the learned Magistrate sent it to the police for report. During the course of their enquiries the police examined among others a man called Subbaraju. On the report of the police the Magistrate called upon the parties concerned to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of actual possession of the land in dispute. Thereafter he commenced his enquiry in the usual manner, and Subbaraj was examined on behalf of 'B' party. Counsel for 'A' party wanted to cross-examine Subbaraju, with reference to certain statements he had made to the police during the course of their enquiry. Counsel for 'B' party objected on the ground that the statement fell within the ban of Section 162, Criminal P. C., and that objection was upheld by the learned Magistrate. The present petition has been filed to set aside ...
T.N. Seshachalam Naidu Vs. A. Venkatachalam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad820; (1954)IIMLJ471
ORDERUmamaheswaram, J. 1. This civil revision petition is filed as against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Tirupati in S. C. S. No. 741 of 1950 dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he had no right to sue on the promissory note, Ex. A. 6. The case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant and defendants 3 and 4 as sureties executed the suit promissory note on 17-3-1949 for Rs. 450 in favour of the Tamil Nad Commercial Fund Ltd., Kumbakonam, with its branch at Tirupati & that as all the assets and liabilities of the Tamil Nad Commercial Fund Ltd. were transferred to the second defendant, the Tirupati Commercial Fund Ltd., the second defendant became entitled to the amount due under the promissory note, and that as the second defendanttransferred the promissory note to the plaintiff, he was entitled to sue and recover the amount from defendants, 1, 3 and 4.2. While the third defendant remained 'ex parte', defendants 1, 2 and 4 resisted the suit. The mai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›