Chennai Court November 1955 Judgments
P.V. Lakshmi Ammal Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ58
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. It may not be necessary to set out all the details of the chequered history of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, out of which this application to the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has arisen.2. On 11th June, 1952, the Government published a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, to acquire 28 cents of land. The petitioner claimed that this extent of 28 cents was the backyard of her house in Tiruvaiyaru, known as Dewanvada Buildings. The award was passed on 7th November, 1953. An earlier attempt of the petitioner to move the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was the Collector for the purposes of the Act, under Section 49 of the Act failed. After the award had been passed on 22nd February, 1954, the petitioner applied afresh to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 49, claiming that the land acquired by the Government was part of the whole house, and expressing the petitioner's desire that the whole property, house...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Madura Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Muthiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ462
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The management of the Madura Mills Co. Ltd., Madurai, applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Madras dated 18th June, 1955.2. Industrial disputes between the management and the workers of Madura Mills were referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Madurai for adjudication. One set of disputes was numbered as 23 of 1954. Those disputes were referred on 14th April, 1954. The Industrial Tribunal gave its award, and on publication in the gazette it became enforceable from 25th September, 1954. The other set of disputes numbered as 38 of 1954 was referred on 3rd July, 1954, and the award of the Tribunal became enforceable on 22nd October, 1954.3. During the pendency of those proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, Madurai, but independent of them petitions were presented to the Industrial Tribunal under Sections 33 and 33-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Naidu Vs. Kunjammal Alias Sivakami Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ589
Govinda Menon, J.1. This Second Appeal has been referred to a Bench by Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., as it raises a question regarding the scope of the exemption provided for by Section 9-A, Clause (10)(b) of Act IV of 1938.2. The appellant before us is a usufructuary mortgagee of certain items of properties from the respondents under Exhibit A-1, dated 10th November, 1930, for Rs. 500. In his turn the appellant sub-mortgaged the mortgage right under Exhibit B-1 dated 29th July, 1945, for a sum of Rs. 3,500 along with other properties. In the suit by the respondent mortgagor for redemption claiming the benefits of the Section 9-A of the Madras Agriculturist's Relief Act, the appellant claimed the exemption under Section 9-A, Clause (10)(b). Both the lower Courts have held that he is not entitled to the exemption. Hence this Second Appeal.3. Section 9-A, Clause (10)(b) begins as follows:Nothing contained in this section except sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply to any mortgage....(b) Where...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnathvelli Viswanathan, Minor by Next Friend and Brother Kunhikrishn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad604; (1956)2MLJ87
Govinda Menon, J.1. The District Munsif of Payyoli has referred under Section 113 and Order 46, Rule 4-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the auestion raised before him, as to whether Section 52 of the Malabar Tenancy Amendment Act (Madras Act XXXIII of 1951) is invalid being repugnant to the provisions of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution read with Article 19(5). In the opinion of the learned District Munsif Section 52 of Act XXXIII of 1951 is repugnant to the above provisions of the Constitution and hence requests the High Court for an authoritative pronouncement on the topic. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have, in view of the pronouncements of this Court in R.C. Nos. 86 to 88 of 1954 in which Rajagopalan, J., agreeing with one of us, Govinda Menon, J., had held that no provisions of the various Malabar Tenancy Acts, namely, Madras Acts XIV of 1930, XXIV of 1946, XXXIII of 1951 and VII of 1954 are invalid as infringing any of the Articles of the Constitution an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdul Kadir
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad333; 1956CriLJ751
ORDERRamaswami Gounder, J.1. These revisions are filed by the accused against his conviction and sentence in two cases arising under Ordinance 19 of 1944 called Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Ordinance, 1944.2. Clause 3 of that Ordinance provides that whoever is found or is proved to have been in possession of any article of railway stores, shall unless he proves that the article came into possession with him lawfully be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both.3. In this case some belts belonging to the railway company were found in the possession of P. W. 3's brother, who is the owner of a rice mill at Karur. According to the prosecution, these belts were purchased by P. W 3 from the accused. The trial Magistrate, as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal accepted his evidence, as it was supported by the testimony of two other persons, P. Ws. 4 and 5.There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Balasaraswathi Ltd., Tirunelveli Vs. A. Parameswara Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Mad122
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. These are three connected appeals against the judgment and decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in O. S. Nos. 131 of 1950 and 101 of 1951. 2. The facts were briefly these: One Subbiah Ayyar of Kesavasamudram was a banker doing business in money-lending. He used to take deposits from persons, including widows and orphans, at an attractive rate of interest, said to be ranging from 7 1/2 per cent to 9 per cent per annum, and lend out the moneys so borrowed to busowners and others, at 12 per cent, compound interest per annum, with yearly rests, such bus owners etc., making high profits and being ready to give such interest which he considered to be quite reasonable in the circumstances. One Sadagopal Naidu, the second defendant in both the suits, and his brother, Srinivasaga Naidu, the third defendant in O. S. No. 101 of 1951 and not a defendant in the other suit, were running some buses even early in 1945, having contracted loans from Subbiah Aiyar and...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakami Achi Vs. S.P.R.M.A.L.S. Somasundaram Chettiar Alias Alagappa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ441
ORDERRamaswami Gounder, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Ramanathapuram in A.S. No. 18 of 1946 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in O.S. No. 113 of 1944.2. This second appeal is being heard by a Bench as Raghava Rao, J., was of opinion that an important question of Hindu Law of adoption was involved in this case.3. The facts necessary for comprehending the questions relating to adoption involved in the case are: One Umayal Achi who died some time before January 1928 was the mother of two daughters, viz-, Kanthimathi and Sivakami. Kanthimathi who died on 27th August, 1935, was got married as the second wife of the second defendant Chockalingam Chettiar. This Chockalingam Chettiar's first deceased wife was one Visalakshi. Sivakami was the first defendant in the suit. The plaintiff Somasundaram alias Alagappa Chettiar contends that he has been adopted by the second defend...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Pillai Vs. Sellappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad512; (1956)1MLJ553
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal against the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in W.P. No. 22 of 1954 relates to the election of the President of the Panchayat Board of Andhiyur. The election took place on 28th April, 1953 and the appellant was declared elected as having obtained the largest number of votes. Originally five candidates filed their nomination papers, namely, the appellant and the contesting respondent (first respondent) and three others, namely, Manicka Mudali, Angappa Mudali and Perianna Gounder. The date for the scrutiny of the nominations was 11th April, 1953. A valid withdrawal of a nomination could have been effected under the rules by notice in writing sent by the candidate and communicated to the Election Officer before 13th April, 1953. The three candidates other than the appellant and the first respondent sent up written communications by post withdrawing their candidature on 14th April, 1953. The communications were received by the election authority on t...
Tag this Judgment!Kallipattu Oothukattu Mariamman Temple by Its Trustee Sarangapani Goun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ230
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The point for determination in this appeal is whether there has been a proper presentation of the document for registration under Section 32 of the Indian Registration Act.2. One Arunachala Gounder, the paternal uncle of the defendant, was the trustee of a Mariamman Temple, and in the course of his administration as trustee it was found that a sum of Rs. 500 was due from him to the temple. To make good that amount he arranged for the transfer of certain property standing in the name of the defendant to the temple and got the defendant his nephew to execute a sale deed Exhibit A-3 in favour of the plaintiff-temple with himself representing the temple mentioned in the sale deed as trustee. Exhibit A-3 was executed on 21st February, 1949 and Arunachala Gounder the executant died on 28th February, 1949, before the document could be registered. The document was thereafter presented for compulsory registration by the plaintiff Sarangapani Gounder, who represented hi...
Tag this Judgment!K. Subramania Pillai Vs. A.V.S.V. Sankara Kulathu Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ527
ORDER.-' Nothing has been realised from the petitioner as yet. He is therefore given a discharge subject to the condition that his after-acquired assets, if any, will vest in the Official Receiver till his creditors are paid 8 annas in the rupee '.4. It is obvious from this order that this Sankara Kulathu Ayyar has not reported any realization from out of the assets of the insolvent in the Madras State. On application by this Sankara Kulathu Ayyar, the decree obtained by him was transmitted on 16th October, 1949 to the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, and E.P. No 163 of 1949 was filed for executing the said decree by attachment of the immovable properties of this Sabramania Pillai in Tirunelveli. I may add for completeness of information that this Sankara Kulathu Ayyar who had no notice of the petition for discharge filed a review petition against the order of discharge and it has been dismissed by the Trivandrum District Court and it has become final.5. On notice being taken to this Subramania...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »