Chennai Court July 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.
Rangasami Goundan Vs. K.R. Rangai, Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad545
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant in this Court and the appeal is directed against an order of remand passed by the learned District Judge of Coimbatore. The question for consideration is as to the proper construction of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. The facts necessary to appreciate the point raised lie in a very narrow compass. The defendant, who is the appellant here, executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on 21-9-1944 for a sum of Rs. 1000/-, and under the terms of this document the mortgagee was to continue in possession for a period of nine years and the mortgage was to be discharged by the mortgagee appropriating to his use the income to be derived from the property. But the mortgagor did not admittedly deliver possession of the properly to the mortgagee. Consequently the mortgagee filed O. S. No. 304 of 1948 for the recovery or the consideration which he paid to the mortgagor. This suit was defended on the ground that a sui...
K. Marappa Gounder, K.M.S. Bus Service Vs. the Central Road Traffic Bo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1954
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ324
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner and the fourth respondent were rival applicants for a stage carriage permit to ply buses on he Coimbatore-Thathamangalam route. The Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the fourth respondent on 18th February, 1952. The appeal by the petitioner against that grant preferred to the Central Road Traffic Board was rejected on 2nd June, 1952. The petitioner unsuccessfully invoked the revisional powers of the Government, who rejected his petition on 9th September, 1952. To set aside these orders the petitioner presented this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The application was presented on 11th December, 1952.2. A portion of the Coimbatore-Thathamangalam route lay within the limits of the Madras State and the rest was in Travancore-Cochin. Each State had to grant a permit for the portion of the route that lay in that State, and unless the same person was given permits by both the States, a continuous service without subjectin...
Dhirajlal Vittalji Vs. the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1954
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ93
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property at Mangalore, dated 19th March, 1950, and the order on appeal the reform of the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, dated 9th March, 1952, may be quashed on the ground that Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (XXXI of 1950) corresponding to Section 38 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance (XXVII of 1949) is void under Article 13 of the Constitution.2. On 24th May, 1948, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the power-of-attorney agent of one Abdul Sukoor Thayab conveying property in Mangalore (plot of land and house No. 106, Kasba Bazaar) for a consideration of Rs. 20,000. On 18th March,. 1950, the vendor, Abdul Sukoor, was declared an evacuee, and his properties were declared evacuee properties. Ordinance XXVII of 1949 came into force on or about 18th October, 1949. Section 3...
N. Swaminatha Iyer Vs. Brahmayya and Co., Official Liquidators, Hanuma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad30; [1954]24CompCas443(Mad)
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal against the order of panchapakesa Ayyar J. dated 29-4-1953 arises out of an application filed in the proceedings in the liquidation of the Hanuman Bank Ltd. The said Bank was directed to be wound up by this Court in 1947 and provisional liquidators were appointed on 15-8-1947. The appellant who was the applicant before the learned Judge in chambers was the President of the Board of Directors of the Bank at the time of the liquidation. He was elected to that office in 1938 and continued in it till 1947. The Official Liquidator applied in Appln. No. 1800 of 1949 for public examination of the appellant along with others, directors and other officers, under Section 196, Companies Act. On 7-6-1949 Rajagopalan J. passed an order 'ex parte' granting the application. On receiving notice of this order, the appellant filed an application, No. 2048 of 1949 for vacating the said order, or in the alternative, for postponement of the public examination till the disposa...
Malabar Roadway Service, Kozhikode Vs. State of Madras, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad176; 1955CriLJ536
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. In our opinion, this appeal must be dismissed. But we would prefer to rest our decision on the merits. The main point of the appellant before us was that the prosecution of the conductor who was in charge of the bus on the material date ended in an acquittal, and therefore, applying the principle of the decision in -- 'Jesome D'Silva v. Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara', : AIR1952Mad853 (A), the order of the suspension by the Transport Authority should be vacated. The learned Judge, whose order is under appeal, on a careful consideration of that judgment, held that it did not compel him to hold that the order of the Transport Authorities was illegal or void, because there was no finding by the Magistrate that there had been no overcrowding. The acquittal was on a technical ground, viz., that the prosecution had not proved by the production of the G permit the sanctioned capacity of the vehicle. An acquittal in such circumstances cannot amount to a positive...
P.K. Murugan Vs. Vallabhan Kantan Styled Kunhanunni and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad53
Govinda Menon, J.1. O. S. No. 42 of 1951 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam was a suit filed by the appellant, petitioner against the two respondents-defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8542-8-0 from the first defendant personally and from the income of his stanom properties. The amount was made up of principal and interest on two promissory notes, the first dated 6-6-1950 for Rs. 5000 and another dated 9-6-1950 for Rs. 3000 executed by the first defendant in favour of one S. V. Gopalakrishna Iyer and endorsed to the plaintiff on 28-7-1951. The second defendant has been impleaded in the suit as the first defendant under a document dated 10-8-1951 authorised the second defendant to make collections of the rents due to him from the various tenants of his and has therefore made it difficult for the plaintiff to have re-course to those rents for the realisation of the amounts due to him under two promissory notes.2. Pending the suit I. A. No. 1291 of 195...
St. Anthony's Church represented by Its Parish Priest Rev. Fr. P. Mich ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad542
Somasundaram, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for eviction and possession of a small piece of land on which-the defendant has raised a wall. The plaintiff is a church represented by its Parish Priest. The defendant is the owner of the site and the building thereon on the South-western side of the church and its compound.She got it from her father under a settlement deed, Ex. A-1, dated 10-1-1952. The father got it by a purchase from one Ami Narayanaswami Mudaliar under Ex. B-8, dated 23-11-1933. The original owner was one Agatheeswara Mudaliar and it was from him Ami Narayanaswami Mudaliar bought it in November 1933. The church and the defendant's building are all in Marshalls Road. The church property is comprised in T. S. No. 1423 and 1422/1. The defendant's building is comprised in T. S. No. 1422/2.During the lifetime of the defendant's father he applied to the Corporation for sanction to demolish his building and to reconstruct on the same plot. Before the sanction...
Ambal Bagyam Vs. Ramayya Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad88
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. This appeal is by the wife whose marriage with her husband has been dissolved by an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayuram in an application filed by the husband for divorce under Act 6 of 1049, Section 5(1) (b). 2. Section 5(1) (b) is in the following terms: '(1) Either party to a marriage solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act who has completed eighteen years of age may present a petition to the (concerned court) within the limits of whose jurisdiction the marriage was solemnised...... (b) if the wife, is a concubine of any otherman or is leading the life of a prostitute.' In this case the petitioner-respondent did notallege that the appellant was leading a life ofa prostitute. He confined his petition for divorceto the ground that his wife, the appellate here, is a concubine of another man, namely, one Pavadai Chettiar. It goes beyond saying that in a case where the petitioner applies to the Court for a divorce on any one of t...
A.M.K.M.K. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. S.S. Habib Mohamed Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad43
Govinda Menon, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,700, on foot of a promissory note executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on 30-12-1948. The consideration stated in the promissory note was that the appellant purchased two motor cars from the respondent, one of them being a Ford V8 Of 1942 model (P.S. 781) for Rs. 6500 and the - other a 1936 model Terraplane for Rs. 3500. The total consideration therefore is Rs. 10000.The suit was laid under the provisions of the summary chapter, Order 37, Rule 2 and an application was made by the defendant-appellant under Order 37, Rule 3 for leave to defend the suit unconditionally. The plaintiff-respondent filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the allegations contained In the affidavit in support of the petition and the learned Judge after going through the affidavits and certain account books which were produced before him came to the conclusion that leave to defend should...
E. Doraiswami Vs. Brijlal Choudhury
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad80; (1954)IIMLJ767
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. In our opinion, the learned Judge was right in revoking the leave to sue granted to the appellant. The suit was filed for the following reliefs (1) a declaration that a letter executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was not valid and binding on the plaintiff, (2) an injunction restraining the defendant from taking any steps, civil or criminal, against the plaintiff to enforce the claim, and (3) the payment of Rs. 3000 as damages. the letter in question was admittedly executed in Delhi. The undue Influence and coercion exercised by the defendant were at Delhi. The defendant resides at Delhi. The only way in which the appellant sought to sustain his application for leave to sue in this Court was that a part of the cause of action in any event arose in Madras because the defendant attempted to enforce the letter by taking steps to collect the money at Madras. In paragraph 12, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was attempting to collect the moneys all...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »