Chennai Court April 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.
In Re: T.C. Nichodemus
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad561; 1955CriLJ1363
ORDERChandra Reddy, J. 1. Accused 1 in P. R. C. No. 1 of 1954 is the petitioner. A complaint was filed against him and eleven others for offences under Sections 343, 348 and 330, I. P. C. 2. The petitioner who is the Inspector of Police Srikakulam, in the course of an investigation into a series of cases of house breaking and theft questioned P. W. 1 on 27-10-1952 in the police station regarding one of such occurrences. When P. W. 1 denied knowledge of it, he directed the subordinate officials, who were there, to investigate further into the matter. In pursuance to these directions P. W. 1 was taken to a corner and, after, further questioning, they handcuffed him and chained him to the iron bar of the door. It is also the prosecution case that on the 28th October when the petitioner went to the police station and saw the plight of P. W. 1, he abused the constables for handcuffing him locking him up and directed that he should be released immediately. But this direction of the petitione...
Cv. Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Ak. Rm. M. Ct. Chidambaram Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1040
1. Appellants in C. M. A. Nos. 656 and 657 of 1952 and C. M. A. No. 104 of 1953 are the plaintiffs who filed a suit for specific performance and obtained a decree.Plaintiffs and 1st defendant are co-sharers in some villages plaintiffs being entitled to 4/7 share and defendants to 3/7 shares. The suit was based on an agreement executed by the 1st defendant on 9-10-1941 to convey the 3/7 share to the plaintiffs for Rs. 45000. It is common ground that on that date the plaintiffs were in enjoyment of the whole village under an agreement for enjoyment by rotation for a period proportionate to the respective shares.Plaintiffs' suit O. S. No. 93 of 1943 for specific performance of this agreement was decreed on 30-12-1944 with a direction to the plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 45000 by 10-1-1945. This sum was deposited on 3-1-1946, and has remained in court deposit ever since earning no interest. An appeal filed by the first defendant, A. S. No. 295 of 1945 in the High Court was dismissed on 1-4-194...
Karri Venkayyamma Vs. Goluguri Tirapayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad32
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a second appeal by the 13th defendant, the legal representative of the second defendant, against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge, East Godavari reversing that of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry in O. S. No. 71 of 1944. The said suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration that the suit partnership became dissolved on 22-4-1944, or for a dissolution of the suit partnership by Court as from the date of the suit for taking accounts of the partnership and to recover the plaintiff's share therein. The case of the plaintiff may be briefly stated.Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 and another Karri Suryanarayana Reddi husband of the 10th defendant and father of defendants 11 and 12 entered into a partnership, on or about 5-9-1930 at Anaparti for the purpose of purchasing and selling plantain mango and other fruits and also doing commission, business in fruit and carried on business under the name and style of Karrivirr Redd...
G.S. Santhaji Rao Vs. B. Chinnayya Sethi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1051; (1954)IIMLJ273
Chandra Reddy, J.1. The second judgment-debtor is the appellant. The respondent brought an action on 6-2-1950 in District Court of Bangalore for recovering a sum of money due to him on dealings. The defendants are residents of Anantapur. None of them appeared in the Bangalore Court to contest the suit with the result that an ex parte decree was obtained on 21-7-1950 for Rs. 19015-7-6 with subsequent interest and costs.The decree-holder got the decree transferred for execution on 8-1-1951 to the District Court, Anantapur,' within whose jurisdiction the judgment-debtors reside. In the latter Court the execution sought was by way of attachment and sale of immoveable properties of the defendants. Two notices were taken to the Judgment-debtors but they did not choose to appear in Court. The Court held that the service was sufficient and ordered attachment on 5-4-1951. The properties were attached on 22-1-1951 and 24-4-1951 and sale notice was ordered.At this stage, the appellant filed a pet...
Central Brokers Vs. Ramnarayana Poddar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1057
The question referred to the Full Bench is as follows :"IS an order made under Section 10, C. P. C., or any other provision of law for the stay of trial of a suit, a judgment within the meaning of that term in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?"The scope of the reference is therefore restricted and circumscribed in character and we are relieved of the task of attempting to define the term "judgment" in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in all its aspects. An exhaustive definition of that word has not been successfully laid down in any decision in India during the last nearly a century though Hidayatullah J. in -- 'Manohar Damodar v. Baliram Ganpat', AIR 1952 Nag 357 at p. 376 (FB) (A) has brought out a definition containing the essential ingredients of a judgment derivable from various decisions.2. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent with which we are now concerned is dated 28-12-1865 and has undergone a few amendments which are unnecessary for consideration in the present context. Prior to th...
K.G. Rangaswami Chettiar and Co. and ors. Vs. K.R. Eswaramurthy Gounda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1053; (1954)IIMLJ520
1. By his order dated 23-9-1953, Ramaswami J. directed that the taking of an account under Clause (1) of the decree in C. S. No. 39 of 1948 on the file of the sub Court of Coimbatore will be stayed pending App. No. 1097 of 1952 on the file of the High Court and that there would be no stay regarding any other portion of the decree In O. S. No. 39 of of 1948.The main item of the decree in which stay of execution has been refused is one relating to the direction to defendants l to 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 7707 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from 17-2-1947 till the date of realisation. It is alleged that this amount was due to the plaintiff because he had to pay sales-tax to the Government on account of the fact that the A licence was in his name though the business was conducted by the partnership consisting of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. During the period for which these amounts were due from the partnership, defendants 1 to 4 were in management and it was their dut...
Varadarajulu Naidu and ors. Vs. Masaya Boyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1113; (1954)IILLJ426Mad
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal against the judgment of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act.The respondent filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming a compensation of Rs. 2106 on the following allegations, namely, that he was a workman employed by one V. Ramaswami Naidu, a contractor, in the month of November 1946, and that he received a personal Injury by accident, arising out of, and in the course of, his employment.The cause of the injury was the capsizing of the lorry belonging to the contractor and driven by his driver when the said lorry was conveying the respondent and his fellow workmen to the workspot. The injury sustained by the respondent was the breaking of his left arm, which resulted eventually in the loss of his left arm.The said Ramaswami Naidu, the employer, died soon after the filing of the application, and the reply statement was filed by his three sons as his legal representatives. They denied tha...
Ahmed HussaIn Vs. Saidani Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad263; (1954)IIMLJ605
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was the defendant in O. S. No. 88 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chingleput. The subject-matter of the litigation was a house. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners of the house and that the defendant, had been merely permitted by Abdul Subban Saheb their predecessor-in-title to occupy the house free of rent. The plaintiffs alleged that after the death of Abdul Subban Saheb, the defendant, taking advantage of his possession, was setting up title in himself. They, therefore, sued to recover possession of 'the property and also for compensation for the wrongful occupation of the premises by the defendant computed at Rs. 30 a month.The suit was compromised, the defendant undertaking to pay Rs. 500 for costs and Rs. 20 per month, from the date of the decree, as compensation for the occupation of the house. The defendant did not vacate the premises within the time promised. The decree-holders in consequence filed an execution pet...
V. Srinivasaraghavan Vs. V. Sundararajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad552
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an application for compensation. 2. The facts are: C. S. No. 499 of 1949 was filed by V. Srinivasa Raghavan residing at No. 29, Gangadareswarar Koil Street, Purasawalkam, Madras, against his brother V. Sundararajan, residing at No. 8, Lawders Gate Road, Vepery, Madras. The litigants arc brothers. The plaintiff Srinivasa Raghavan is one of the Auctioneers of the Madras High Court since 1927 and of the High-Court of Bombay, Mysore, Travancore and Cochin for several years, to the Government of India, as Auctioneers to the Collector of Customs and to the Government of Madras, Madhya Bharat, Cooch Behar and Hyderabad in addition to the Central Bank of India, Bank of Mysore, Nedungadi Bank, Palai Central Bank and United Bank of India, Calcutta and Habeeb Bank Ltd., Bombay and several Insurance Companies of Bombay. The defendant is an advocate of this Court, Mysore Court, and the Supreme Court. 3. This suit C. S. 499 of 1949 was filed for taking of an account of t...
Lakamaraju Seetharamaraju and ors. Vs. Lakamaraju Sivaramaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad924
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioners were accused 2, 3 and 4 in the court below. One Sivaramaraju filed a complaint against these three persons and another alleging that they committed offences under Sections 447 and 352, I. P. C.The complainant's case was that he was in possession of survey field No. 280/3 in the village of Veerapalle. On account of previous quarrels between him and the accused they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 27-9-1953 and trespassed into the field which he was ploughing. Accused 2 to 4 unyoked the bulls and when the complainant objected, they pushed him down into the mud.The complaint was laid ha the court of the Sub-Magistrate of Kundukur. In view of the heavy pendency in that court, this case, along with several others was withdrawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kundukur to his own file, where he tried it under Chapter 22 of the Criminal P. C.The case of the accused was that they were the owners of the field, that the complainant had...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »