Chennai Court January 1956 Judgments
In Re: Kanniyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ139; (1956)2MLJ429
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner applied for the transfer of C.C. No. 3790 01 1955, from the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Polur to that of the Sub-Magistrate, Ami. An application for a similar relief made to the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed.2. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the principle laid down in Public Prosecutor v. Chockalinga Ambalam (1928) 56 M.L.J. 216 : I.L.R. Mad. 355, applied, and that as in C.C. No. 3790 of 1955 evidence had been closed and arguments had been heard, he had no jurisdiction to order transfer of the case. The learned Sessions Judge apparently overlooked the difference in language between Clause (8) of Section 526 and Clause (1-c) of Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The limitations imposed by Clause (8) of Section 526 may not all be read into Clause (1-c) of Section 528, which gives ample discretion to the Sessions Judge to order any particular case to be transferred from one criminal Court to another criminal Court in t...
Tag this Judgment!Mootha Mohanraj Sowcar Vs. Manicka Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad467; (1956)2MLJ77
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage and the main question to be considered is whether the suit is not maintainable by virtue of Section 67-A of the Transfer of Property Act introduced by the Amending Act of 1929. The 8th defendant is the appellant. The first defendant for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, defendants 2 and 4, executed in favour of one Kuppuswami Chetty a simple mortgage of the suit properties on 27th January, 1931, under Exhibit P. 1 for a sum of Rs. 1000. It is stated in the document that the sum of Rs. 1000 was required for discharging a decree debt due to one Ganeshmul Sowcar by the first defendant. Another simple mortgage was executed earlier on 20th January, 1931, by the first defendant for himself and on behalf of his minor sons in favour of the same mortgagee Kuppuswami Chetty over certain properties of his for a similar sum of Rs. 1000. After Kuppuswami Chetty's death his widow Kamalammal instituted a suit O.S. No. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Sambanda Naicker and ors. Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad207
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This civil revision Petition arises out of an order made by the learned District Munsif, Sirkali, granting permission to withdraw the suit filed by the plaintiff as a pauper with liberty to file a fresh suit. The order is purported to have been made under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P. O.2. The plaintiff is a widow and there was an earlier suit brought by her for maintenance against the estate of the joint family, she is the widow of the deceased brother of the first defendant. Her husband had predeceased her father-in-law. The suit was O. S. No. 231 of 1945 and there was a compromise decree in that suit. Maintenance was agreed to be paid at the rate of 24 kalams of paddy and cash of Rs. 60 per year, as the father-in-law was hound to maintain her under a moral obligation,3. The present suit is for maintenance against the defendants filed after the death of her father-in-law for 60 kalams of 'Paddy and cash of Rs. 60 per annum. The suit also comprised a claim...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Bibi and ors. Vs. Nabissa Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad583
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in O. S. No. 65 of 1948.2. The facts are:--One Ibrahim Sahib constructed a mosque out of his private property on a site purchased by him in the East Rampart Street, Tanjore. He also constructed a 'Chinna Alia Koil' and a Musafar Khana and founded a Thaikkal with the tomb of a saint at Pasupathikoil, Papanasam taluk. On 11-3-1889 and 11-7-1914 this Ibrahim Sahib made a trust deed and a will which have been analysed by a Bench of this Court con-sisting of King and Krishnaswami Ayyangar, JJ. in Mohideen Bivi v. Kaboor Sahib, A. S. No 417 of 1953 (Mad) (A).3. This will has been described by Krishnaswaini Ayyangar J. as an ill-drafted document expressing the intention of the testator in somewhat crude language and thereby affording material for Most of the contentions relating to this will. The learned Judge held that from a careful reading of the various clauses there was...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.D. Devarajulu Naidu and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)IMLJ457; [1956]7STC265(Mad)
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioners in the above two petitions have been convicted for not paying the registration fee under Section 8-A, Clause (3), read with Section 15 (b) of the General Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 696 of 1955 is a vegetable merchant and the petitioners in Criminal Revision Case No. 697 of 1955 are fruit merchants. They are commission agents. Under Section 14-A they are deemed to be dealers within the meaning of the Act. In respect of their business they are liable to be assessed irrespective of the amount of the turnover of the business being less than the minimum specified in Section 3, Clause (3). Under Section 8-B of the Act taxes can be collected only from those who are registered dealers and, therefore, under Section 8-A the petitioners have to get themselves registered whatever the amount of the turnover is, as under Section 14-A they are liable to assessment irrespective of the amount of the turnover.3. By G. O. Notifica...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.D. Devarajulu Naidu and Co. and. anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ258
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioners in the above two petitions have been convicted for not paying the registration fee under Section 8-A, Clause 3 read with Section 15 (b) of the General Sales-tax Act,2. The petitioner in Criminal Revn. Case No. 696 of 1955 is a vegetable merchant and the petitioners in Criminal Revn. Case No. 697 of 1955 are fruit merchants. They are commission agents. Under Section 14-A they are deemed to be dealers within the meaning of the Act, In respect of their business they are liable to be assessed irrespective of the amount of the turnover of the business being less than the minimum specified in Section 3, Clause (3).Under Section 8-B of the Act taxes can be collected only from those who are registered dealers and, therefore, under 8, 8-A the petitioners have to get themselves registered whatever the amount of the turnover is, as under Section 14-A, they are liable to assessment irrespective of the amount of the turnover.3. By G. O. Notification No. 710, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.R. Narasimhachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ566
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in I.A. No. 1304 of 1955. That was an application for the issue of a final decree. That was disposed of by the lower Court ex parte the petitioner, who was the first defendant. The petitioner's contention is that orders were passed in I.A. No. 1304 of 1955 without notice to him, and therefore the order is liable to be set aside as one passed virtually without jurisdiction.2. The application itself was for the issue of a final decree under Order 34, Rule 5. Final decree was ordered to issue.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the final decree itself may be appealable, the order directing that a final decree do issue is not by itself appealable, and there can be a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Counsel relied on Krishna Bai v. Parvati Bai , and on Abdul Latif Khan v. Somar Kunjra : AIR1942Pat341 . But in both thes...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Chettiar Vs. C. Mudalyandan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ573
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This case reveals the plight of litigants when those who are in charge of making and promulgating rules do not take care to see that there is no room for confusion as regards the procedure to be followed in proceedings under the Statute. This Revision Petition arises out of an application by a tenant to set aside an ex parte order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller. But Section 17(2)(d) gives power to the State Government to make rules providing for setting aside ex parte orders passed under this Act. It is evidently in pursuance of this rule-making power that Rule 9(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1951 was made. It runs as follows:In any case in which an order is passed ex parte against a tenant or a landlord, he may, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order, apply to the controller by whom the order was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfied the Controller that the summons was not...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Mudaliar Vs. Pachaiyappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ570
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was for a declaration that the northern wall of the plaintiff's house belonged to him exclusively and for an injunction restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiff to enter into the defendant's premises for the purpose of repairing that wall. The ownership of the wall was in dispute as the defendant contended that the wall in question belonged to him exclusively. The finding of the lower appellate Court is that the plaintiff has established title to the wall and following the decision reported in Bhagavathula Subramania Sastri v. Bhagavatula Lakshminarasimham 16 Ind.Cas. 893, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff is entitled to the right claimed by him to enter into the defendant's premises for repairing his wall but directed that he should be permitted to go in to the defendant's land for repairing the wall in question once a year after giving one month's notice in writing of the time when he i...
Tag this Judgment!Salem Sri Ramaswami Bank, Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ40Mad
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The second respondent was appointed secretary of the petitioner bank on 16 November 1945, and he was also granted a power-of-attorney by the board of directors of the bank. The petitioner claimed that as the secretary of the bank he was its chief executive officer. When the Reserve Bank carried out its inspection of the bank in 1951, certain irregularities were noticed. Independently of that, there was a loss of Rs. 10,000 on 15 November 1952. The second respondent entrusted a cheque for Rs. 10,000 to a peon to be cashed at the local branch of the Indian Bank. The peon absconded with the money. On 25 March 1953, the shareholders of the bank, at a meeting of the general body, directed that action should be taken against the second respondent. On 29 March 1953 the board of directors framed charges against the second respondent and called for his explanation, which he submitted on 11 April 1953. On 11 June 1953, the board of directors resolved to terminate the servi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »