Chennai Court January 1956 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.
The Pudukkottai Ceramics, Ltd.; Krishna and Sons. Managing Agents R. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ486
Govinda Menon, J.1. C.M.P. No. 8180 of 1955 : It is contended by Mr. R. Narasimhachari for the respondents that even if the company went into liquidation after the filing of the Second Appeal and during its pendency the Liquidators cannot be brought on record as the representatives of the erstwhile company as appellants. The learned Counsel contends that according to Sections 155 and 156 of the Indian Companies Act, the moment a Liquidation arises the rights, which the Liquidators have against the erstwhile shareholders who happen to be contributories is a new statutory right created by the Companies Act and not a liability which the shareholders had to the company for the unpaid share money. Reliance is placed upon the observations of Jessel M.R. in In re White House & Co. (1878) 9 Ch. 595 , as well as the observations of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of the Dehradun, etc., Company . The learned Counsel also contends that observatio...
The Salem Sri Ramaswami Bank Ltd. Vs. the Additional Commissioner for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ254
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The second respondent was appointed Secretary of the petitioner Bank on 16th 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 15th 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 25th 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 29th March, 1953, the Board of Directors framed charges against the second respondent and called for his explanation, which he submitted on nth April, 1953. On. 11th June, 1953, the Board of Directors resolved to ...
Jayarama Pillai Vs. Parvathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ585
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal arising from the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in A.S. No. 131 of 1952 practically confirming the order and decree of the learned District Munsif of Villupuram in O.P. No. 65 of 1950.2. The facts are: Thaiyanayagi Ammal, the wife of the first respondent and the mother of respondents 2 and 3, took two mortgages from the father of the petitioners, Deivanayaga Reddiar. The first mortgage, a usufructuary one, was on 3rd November, 1921, for Rs. 1,500 and the second mortgage, also a usufructuary one, was on 28th September, 1923, for Rs. 2,700 in discharge of the prior mortgage and possession continued to be with the mortgagee. This Thaiyanayagi Ammal as well as Deivanayaga Reddiar have died. The petitioners are the five daughters of that Deivanayaga Reddiar. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners on the foot that they are agriculturists within the meaning of Madras Act IV of 1938, and concerning which there is n...
Peediyakkal Ravulla Alias Mullabi Vs. Valiakath Imbichikoya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ572
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The simple point raised in this Civil Revision Petition is that there could be no appeal against an order passed in a claim petition by the executing Court. A decree was obtained by the 1st respondent, in S.C. No. 97 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Quilandy and execution of the decree was sought to be laid against the properties of the Karnavan, 2nd respondent herein, on the allegation contained in the decree that the person against whom the decree was passed personally also represented as karnavan of the tarwad. At the stage of the execution of the decree since the person against whom a personal decree was passed did not represent the tarwad and was not the karnavan of the tarwad against whom execution was sought a claim petition was filed. The claim petition was heard by the executing Court which was also the Court which passed the decree. After hearing the claim petition the executing Court passed an order that the tarwad property was ...
Chittilappalli Mathai Vs. Chittilapalli Kochouseph
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ75
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the document relied upon by the plaintiff to evict the tenants, who are the petitioners in this petition, is admissible in evidence or not2. The relevant portions of the document, Exhibit A, which is a cooly-chit, are as follows:As I have agreed to take from you for my residence the thatched shed, consisting of 30 carpenter's koles all round, with raised mud flooring and walls, with bamboo roofing with cocoanut rafters for a rooms and terraced with mango planks with cocoanut-door frames in eastern portion of your Kakkarat Paramba, I have agreed to pay you an yearly rent of Rs. 6 and I shall myself repair and put up the thatched roofing every year, and pay you a rent of 8 annas per month and get receipt. I shall surrender the shed whenever you require the same without causing any loss whatever.3. Mr. Ramakrishna Iyer, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that th...
Kulandaivelan Chettiar Vs. Ayinan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ469
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was for recovery of damages for loss of reputation and expense and mental agony as he was falsely charged of having brought paddy without permit during the period when the control regulations were in force, by the first defendant with the help of the second and third defendants. The first defendant is a village officer, the second defendant is a Sub-Magistrate and third defendant is a Head Constable. The plaintiff was arrested for violation of the control orders on 12th March, 1947, and he got an order for release on bail on 15th March, 1947, from the Sub-Collector, Musiri, but he was actually released only on 17th March, 1947. His case was that he had a permit for bringing this paddy from Alagarai to Manamedu where the 7 bags were seized. The permit was however not produced. Both the Courts have found that there was no such permit and the seizure and arrest could not, therefore, be considered to be illegal or unlawful....
In Re: Manager, Rajalakshmi Motor Service and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad582; 1956CriLJ1207; (1956)IMLJ473
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Octacamund, under Section 42(1) read with Section 123, Motor Vehicles Act. Petitioner 1 (accused 1) was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and petitioner 2 (accused 2) to a fine of Rs. 5. Both the conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the District Magistrate, Coimbatore.2. Petitioner 1 is the Manager of a bus service called the Rajalakshmi Motor Service at Ootacamund. On 14-3-1955, A. 2, the driver was found driving bus No. M.D.N. 2284 towards Gudalur with 28 passengers on a special trip. The evidence discloses that this bus went on the trip with the consent of petitioner 1 herein. The charge against him for this is that he had done this without a special permit under Section 42, Motor Vehicles Act. That it is a stage carriage is not disputed. Section 42, Motor Vehicles Act runs as follows:No owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle i...
Ethirajammal Vs. S.A. Venkatachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ73
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in O.P. No. 65 of 1953 filed under the Hindu Bigamy Prevention and Divorce Act, Act VI of 1949.2. The original petition was filed by the husband before the learned subordinate Judge under Section 5 of the said Hindu Bigamy Prevention and Divorce Act for a dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent in the said petition. The respondent before the learned Subordinate Judge took the objection that the Sub-Court had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the original petition. The respondent relied upon Section 5(1) of the said Act which is to the following effect:Either party to a marriage solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act who has completed eighteen years of age may present a petition to the Subordinate Judge's Court, the District Court or the City Civil Court, within the limits of whose jurisdiction the marriage was solemn...
Subbu Thaiammal Vs. Rengasami Nackar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ300
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only point for consideration here is whether the lower Court was right in applying Order 2 Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, in the circumstances of the case, and disallowing the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 12 7-14-4, the instalment of rent which had become payable on 12th June, 1952 though she had not sued for it in S.C.S. No. 535 of 1952 filed on 8th September, 1952.2. I have perused the entire records, and heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. Champakesa Ayyangar, learned Counsel, for the petitioner urged that the lower Court was wrong as there was a distinct cause of action regarding each instalment of rent, and there was a right, therefore, to sue for each instalment separately, at the plaintiff's choice, within the period of limitation. I cannot agree. This will lead to the absurdity that a person can sue for an instalment falling due on 15th April, 1955, leaving out the instalment which had fallen due on 15th April, 1954, and suing for the earlier i...
State of Madras Vs. His Holiness Srila Sri Subramania Pandara Sannadhi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad446
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing the application of the petitioner to implead the ryots said to be on the suit village as party defendants to the suit brought by the respondent 2. After the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, was passed, the Settlement Officer constituted under the Act gave notices to all the interested parties to determine the question as to whether the properties in question were an estate or not. After hearing the ryots as well as the landlords, the Settlement Officer gave his findings. Against those findings, the plaintiff-landlord preferred an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal constituted under the Act. That Tribunal upheld the finding of the Settlement Officer that it was an inam estate. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a writ application to quash the findings of the Tribunal. There also the plaintiff lost, but he was directed to establish...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »