Chennai Court September 1954 Judgments
Kishanlal Roopchand and Co. Vs. Indian Dominion and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad151
ORDERMack, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff-firm who sued the B. B. and C. I. Railway as the first defendant, and the M. & S. M. Railway as the second defendant, to recover Rs. 1541-4-0, being the value of 62 pieces of cloth found missing from one bale of a consignment of fifty bales despatched to Madras from Ahmedabad on the B. B. and C. I. Railway on 27-11-1947. Notice of claim to compensation under Section 77, Railways Act, was given only to the M. & S. M. Railway within the six months period prescribed. No notice of claim was admittedly served on the B. B. & C. J. Railway. It was found that the loss did not take place, on the M. & S. M. Railway.The suit was dismissed for failure to serve a notice of claim under Section 77 of the Act on the B. B. & C. I. Railway by the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court on this legal and technical ground. A New Trial application before a learned Bench was dismissed, holding that the dismissal of the suit was correct.2. The law applicab...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachalathammal Vs. T. Karagasabapathi Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad720
Mack, J.1. This is a petition by a judgment debtor to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in execution directing on a sale proclamation the decree holder's valuation and judgment-debtor's valuation to be published and the property brought to sale, without noting any valuation by court.2. In this case the property is said to comprise a number of small houses or tenements whichthe decree-holder valued at Rs. 5000 but whichthe judgment-debtor valued at Rs. 60,000. Therewas admittedly no valuation by an amin or anyindependent Court officer. Order 21, Rule 66(2)(e),a new clause recently enacted and applicable toMadras, requires a sale proclamation to note thevaluation of the property by the decree-holderand the judgment-debtor. It is urged that this isall that is sufficient and that the learned Subordinate Judge's order is in accordance with the requirements of Order 21, Rule 66(2). Reliance is placed on -- 'Srinivasan v. Andhra Bank Ltd.', AIR 1949 Mad 398 (A), a...
Tag this Judgment!Kodia Goundar and anr. Vs. Velandi Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad281
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. The common questions that arise for consideration in these matters relate to the executability of a decree obtained in a representative suit instituted under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. against persons, who are not 'co nomine' parties to the decree and whether a representative action can lie in respect of a claim for damages.2. The appellants In L, P. A. No. 69 of 1960 as representatives of the ryots of Kothapatti village instituted O. S. No. 681 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Periyakulam, against the defendants as representatives of the ryots of Kadirnarasingapuram hamlet of Kothapati. The suit was dismissed. In appeal, A. S. No. 82 of 1927, the Subordinate Judge granted a decree on 19-8-1929, declaring that the Kothapatti ryots are entitled to irrigate their lands through a particular sluice for two days and issuing a permanent injunction restraining the Kadrnara singapuram ryots from closing the sluice during the said two days and from ot...
Tag this Judgment!AzizuddIn and Co., by Managing Partner, P.M. AzizuddIn Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad345
Rajamannar, C.J.1.These four revision petitions arise out of four suits instituted in the Court of Small Causes, Tiru-chirapalli, against the Union of India (Central Government) owning the South Indian Railway, represented by the General Manager, Tiruchirapalli, 'for recovery of damages for non-delivery of goods consigned by the plaintiff from Nellikuppam to different, places outside the State of Madras. In the plaints. the cause of action is stated to have arisen at Nelliknppam on the dates of dispatch and on the dates when the goods ought to have been delivered and on subsequent dates of claim and suit notices to the defendant. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant was liable to be sued at Tiruchirapalli, as he was residing and carrying on his usual course of business, having his offices at Tiruchirapalli on behalf of the Central Government. Objection was raised to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suits.2. Nellikuppam is not within the jurisdiction...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Ranganathan and anr. Vs. Govt. of Madras, Represented by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad331
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of Balakrishna Aiyar J., dismissing Appin. No. 3542 of 1954 in O. P. nO, 419 of 1953. This was an application by the Official Liquidator of the Madras Electric Tramways to set aside a sale effected by a Receiver, appointed by the trustees for the debenture holders of the company, of certain assets of the company of which the latter, had taken possession. 2. It is necessary to set out in some detail the facts of the case giving rise lo this application before the points arising for consideration could be properly understood. O. P. No. 419 of 1953 is a petition for the winding up of the Madras Electric Tramways (1904) Ltd., under the Indian Companies Act, 7 of 1913. The company was incorporated in England for carrying on the business of running electric tramways in the city of Madras. The company was ordered to be wound up by this court of order dated 20-1-1954 on its own petition dated December 1953 on the ground that it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sha Thilokchand Poosaji Vs. Crystal and Co., by Its Authorised Agent a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad481
Rajagopala Aiyangar, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal which is directed against the judgment of. Mack J. sitting on the original side of this Court and the complaint is regarding the dismissal of the counter claim which they had filed in C. S. No. 384 of 1947, a suit filed by the plaintiff against them, The appellants are the buyers in a contract for the sale of goods while the respondent is the seller or the representative of the sellers.2. The facts giving rise to C. S. No. 384 of 1947 may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is a general merchant, Importer and Exporter and commission agent carrying on business in Madras while the defendants are a firm of merchants dealing among others in stationery articles. After some previous correspondence to which it is unnecessary to refer the defendants placed an order with the plaintiff on 30-12-1946 for the supply to them of 550 gross of Everlast fountain pens.The description of the pens was '1000 D. F. regular fills.' The p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Saroja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad596; 1955CriLJ1505
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. The accused having pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 75, City Police Act, the legality and propriety of the sentence alone are open for consideration.2. The offence viz.. fighting, no doubt, merited the fine of Rs. 10/- or in default one week's Rule I.; but I see no reason whatsoever to uphold the binding over to keep peace under Section 105 Cr. P. C. for a period of six mouths on her own bond for Rs. 50/- with one surety for a like sum for two reasons, namely, that there is no indication even, in the judgment, as to why the Magistrate was of opinion that it was necessary to require petitioner to execute a bond for keeping the peace; and secondly, In the instant case the binding over is an undesirable course.3. The Honorary Magistrate, Bench Court, has not even indicated as to why he consideredin the circumstances of this case that the security to keep peace with one surety should be asked for a period of six months, especially when he knew that asking fo...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamuthukoil Pillai and anr. Vs. Periyasami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1333
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1.This is a revision by the accused against an order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, on a petition filed by the complainant in C. C, No. 25 of 1954, on. his file, asking the Court to issue a process to the accused to produce a certain document and also to direct him to give his thumb impression in court so that it may be compared with certain other documents on which the complainant relied.So far as the issue of the process for the production of the document was concerned, the accused had no objection to it and it had been ordered. So far as the prayer for directing the accused to give his thumb impression was concerned, the accused objected to it, but the lower Court relied on Section 73 of the Evidence Act and directed him to give his thumb impression. It is this position of the lower Court's order that is being impugned by the accused in this petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Co...
Tag this Judgment!Manipuzha Illath Sankaram Namboodiri and ors. Vs. Manipuzha Illath Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad579
Mack, J.1. Appellants are the four plaintiffs, who claim to be one branch of a large Nambudiri Illam called Manipuzha Illam and to be governed by the Madras Nambudiri Act, Act 21 of 1933, They sued on this footing for a partition of their 4/25th share in about 500 acres of land. The suit was strenuously opposed by Madhavan Nambudiri, defendant 1, as karnavan and manager of his illam, on the ground inter alia' that the family were Embrandiris, who were governed by Mitakshara law.He filed along with his written statement three schedules of property, (1) 'A' schedule listing the original ancestral property of the Illam, (2) 'B' schedule, which he claimed to belong to him exclusively, and (3) 'G' schedule, which he admitted to belong to all the 25 defendants, who sprang from two branches of one Krishnan Nambudiri, who was a defendant in a suit O.S. No. 25 of 1869 brought against him by his two brothers Sankaran and Govindan.Plaintiffs represent the family of Sankaran, defendant 1, defendan...
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Thani Chettiar and anr. Vs. Dakshinamurthy Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad288
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These two second appeals involve an interesting question of law as to what is the period of limitation applicable to a suit filed by an alienee from a coparcener of an undivided share in joint family property for general partition. There is very little direct authority on the question. The Nayadu J. who referred them for decision by aDivision Bench of this court. These two appealsarise out of two suits for partition, O. S. No. 47of 1946 and O. S. No. 23 of 1945 in the court ofthe Subordinate Judge of Chingleput, filed in thefollowing circumstances. The properties in suitbelonged to a joint family. The following pedigree shows the relationship between members ofthis family. SUBBAHAYA MUDALI | __________________________|________________________ | | Varadaraja Mudali Singaravelu Mudali (died) (died) __________|________________ | | | | | Menka Thangarelu Subbayya Ratnavelu Mudali Mudali Mudali Mudali (deft 8) | | (died) | | Chinnakulandai ______________|______________...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »