Chennai Court October 1955 Judgments
Joseph BenjamIn Bonjour (insolvent) Vs. the Official Assignee of Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ166
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted at the instance of Ramaswami Gounder, J., who considered that there should be an authoritative expression of opinion on the question whether a compulsory deposit when it is paid over to the subscriber or depositor, loses its character and becomes liable to attachment or vests in the Official Assignee or the Receiver in Insolvency on the subscriber or depositor being adjudged an insolvent, or, whether the immunity under Section 3(1) of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, continues to attach itself to such monies even after they are paid into the hands of the subscriber or depositor. It is difficult to understand how any question can arise of an attachment of money in the hands of the debtor, himself. There is no such attachment in this case. We shall therefore confine the scope of this reference to the latter part of the question, namely, whether the immunity under Section 3(1) of the Act continues to attach itself to moneys paid i...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyan Ammal Vs. Vellayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad354; (1956)1MLJ255
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The property, a fifth share of which the plaintiff claimed, belonged to Arumugam. He effected a usufructuary mortgage over that property in favour of one Sankaralingam on 22nd July, 1890. The rights of the mortgagee subsequently devolved on his daughter Kalyani. After the death of Arumugam, his five sons, defendants 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Sami succeeded to his rights. The plaintiff is the wife of the fourth defendant. Defendant 7 is the widow of Sami. On 27th July, 1906, four of Arumugam's sons, defendants 3, 5, 6 and Sami executed Exhibit B-1, purporting to convey the entire equity of redemption in the property to the first defendant. The first defendant redeemed the mortgage effected by Arumugam and obtained possession of the property some time between 1906 and 1912. She has been in possession of the property ever since. In 1920 the fourth defendant executed Exhibit A-2 in favour of his wife, the plaintiff, purporting to convey to her his fifth share in the suit pro...
Tag this Judgment!Anganna Goundan Alias Chinnasami Goundan Vs. Angamuthu Goundan and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad271; (1956)1MLJ300
Govinda Menon, J.1. O.P. No. 302 of 1951 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore was an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis to recover eleven items of properties filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that a certain decree and proceedings thereunder were void and not binding on him. The learned Subordinate Judge issued notice to the opposite party and the Government Pleader and directed that such evidence as the applicant may adduce to prove that the applicant is not subject to any of the prohibitions contained in Rule 5 of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, would be received as also the evidence which may be adduced by the opposite parties to the contrary. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents was that the whole claim of the applicant has become barred by limitation. Against this contention the petitioner herein urged that question cannot be gone into at this stage as the only question before the Court at the stage before the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan Vs. N.B. Balachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ459
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a very peculiar case. The petitioner, Balakrishnan, when admittedly sane, executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,000 in favour of one Andi on 22nd January, 1946. That promissory note was said to have been assigned by Andi for proper consideration to one Balachandran, the first respondent. This Balachandran brought a suit, O.S. No. 234 of 1948, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Palghat, on that promissory note. When the summons went to Balakrishnan, who was then undergoing a term of imprisonment in goal, it was returned with the endorsement that Balakrishnan was insane. On that endorsement, and without any further enquiry under Order 32, Rule 15, Civil Procedure Code and acting on the endorsement as if it were conclusive in the matter, the learned District Munsif held that the man was insane, and appointed his brother, one Viswanathan, as manager and guardian ad litem of the alleged lunatic. This Viswanathan was a coparcener with Balakrishna...
Tag this Judgment!C. Duraiswami Iyengar and anr. Vs. the United India Life Assurance Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad316; (1956)1MLJ344
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs, whose suit against the United India Life Assurance Co., Ltd., as the first defendant and its directors, defendants 2 to 7, and the Official Trustee of Madras, defendant 8, was dismissed by the City Civil Judge. The plaintiffs prayed for two reliefs: (1) declaring that the first defendant-Company and its directors, defendants 2 to 7 are not entitled to invest the funds belonging to the policy-holders' trust-fund in the construction of any building in Mount Road, Madras and (2) restraining defendants 1 to 8 by a permanent injunction from applying, expending or appropriating any monies belonging to the policy-holder's trust-fund for the construction of any such building.2. The first defendant-Company is a limited liability Company, incorporated about the year 1906, for the purpose of carrying on the business of life insurance. About 1927, the subscribed share capital of the Company was about Rs. 70,000; but most of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Joghee Gowder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ234
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition which is sought to be preferred against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris in I.A. No. 265 of 1954 in O.S. No. 30 of 1951.2. O.S. No. 30 of 1951 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share in certain properties. During the pendency of this suit, the 9th defendant therein filed O.S. No. 251 of 1952 for specific performance of an agreement for partition and for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from further proceeding with this suit. While the two suits were pending trial, a memo was filed under Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the effect that the parties agree that matters in dispute in the above two suits may be decided by the Court acting as arbitrator. This memo was subscribed to by all the parties who had entered appearance and their counsel. On the same date the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs also filed an affidavit that as the matter involved...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Kulathu Iyer Vs. S. Manickavasagam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ385
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected second appeals preferred against the decrees and Judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, in A.S. Nos. 76 and 77 of 1951, arising from the orders made by the learned District Munsif of Kovilpatti in O.P. Nos. 19 and 20 of 1950.2. The facts are: The respondents' father had become indebted to the appellant's vendor. This indebtedness had come to a head in 1932, which, as the preamble to Act IV of 1938 shows, was a year of great depression. In fact the beneficial Madras Act IV of 1938 and the other statutory legislation came to relieve the ryots of the overwhelming indebtness under which they were groaning. Therefore, in these circumstances, the respondents' father wanted to settle his debts with the vendor of the appellant. The appellant's vendor, on account apparently of the long transactions with these people, has taken a sympathetic view and has settled the amounts at much lower rates and has agreed to take the properties of these ...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Ammal and ors. Vs. Divisional Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1955
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ233Mad
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the order made by the learned Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C. Case No. 615 of 1949.2. The facts are: The Highways departmental lorry No. M.D.C. No. 2398 was hired out to the contractor A.P. Kanari, for conveying granite metal from the quarry at mile 24/5 on the Tellicherry-Bawali road to mile 19/5-6 of the same road. The agreement executed by the contractor in this behalf is Ex. A. 1. The application of the contractor for hiring the lorry is Ex. A. 2. The contractor acknowledged the receipt of the lorry from the Highways department in his letter Ex. A. 3. After having thus obtained the lorry on hire from the department the contractor started his work. On 21 August 1949, while the lorry was plying up the ghats empty for reloading metal it had to negotiate an almost right-angular curve just after passing the 23/3 furlong stone. As the lorry swerved one of the four coolies inside the lorry, C. Kunhiram...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Ammal and ors. Vs. the Divisional Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ19
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the order made by the learned Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C. Case No. 615 of 1949.2. The facts are.- The Highways Departmental Lorry No. M.D.C. No. 2398 was hired out to the contractor A.P. Kanari, for conveying gianite metal from the quarry at mile 24/5 on the Tellicherry-Bawali road to mile 19/5-6 of the same road. The agreement executed by the contractor in this behalf is Exhibit A-1. The application of the contractor for hiring the lorry is Exhibit A-2. The contractor acknowledged the receipt of the lorry from the Highways Department in his letter Exhibit A-3. After having thus obtained the lorry on hire from the Department, the contractor started his work. On 21st August, 1949, while the lorry was plying up the ghats empty for reloading metal, it had to negotiate an almost right-angular curve just after passing the 23/3 furlong stone. As the lorry swerved, one of the four coolies inside the lo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Seetharaman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad292; (1956)1MLJ232
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision by the counter-petitioner in M.C. No. 6 of 1954 on the file of the District Magistrate (Judicial), Vellore, against the order asking him to execute a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour under section no (e) and (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner herein was the counter-petitioner in the trial Court. He is said to be a graduate. Proceedings were instituted against him for taking a bond under section no (e) and (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Magistrate found that a case has been made out and directed the accused to give security on his own bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like amount to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. He found that a case has been made out both under Clause (e) and Clause (f) of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But on appeal the Sessions Judge held that no satisfactory case has been made out for action under Clause (e) of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »