Chennai Court February 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.
N.P.A.K. Muthiah Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. K.S. Rm. Firm Shwebo, Bu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad25; (1955)2MLJ608
Govinda Menon, J.1. A. A. O. N. 85 of 1951: The short facts which have given rise to the above appeal are as follows: Defendant 1 in C. R. No. 172 of 1932 on the file of the High Court, Rangoon, was a firm of which defendants 2 and 3 were partners and the suit against them was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 48000 and odd. On 25-5-1933 after the refusal of the request by the defendants' advocate for an adjournment of the suit an ex parte decree was passed as prayed for. By E. A. No. 613 of 1933 on the file of the Rangoon High Court the decree was transmitted for execution to the Sub-Court, Deva-kottah, where it was alleged that the properties of the judgment-debtors were situate. Between 1933 and 1941 three infructuous applications were taken out by the decree-holder but the same were dismissed for various reasons. Thereafter on 6-9-1944 more than three years of the dismissal of the previous application and the final orders' being passed on that E. P. No. 173 of 1944 was filed for executi...
N.P.A.K. Muthiah Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. K.S.Rm. Firm Shwebo, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ239
Govinda Menon, J.1. The short facts which have given rise to the above appeal are as follow: The first defendant in C.R. No. 172 of 1932 on the file of the High Cout, Rangoon, was a firm of which defendants 2 and 3 were partners and the suit against them was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,000 and odd. On 25th May, 1933, after the refusal of the request by the defendants' advocate for an adjournment of the suit, an ex parte decree was passed as prayed for. By E.A. No. 613 of 1933 on the file of the Rangoon High Court the decree was transmitted for execution to the Sub-Court, Devakottai, where it was alleged that the properties of the judgment-debtors were situate. Between 1933 and 1941 three infructuous applications were taken out by the decree-holder but the same were dismissed for various reasons. Thereafter on 6th September, 1944, more than three years of the dismissal of the previous application and the final orders being passed on that, E.P. No. 173 of 1944 was filed for executing...
Workers of Spencer and Company, by the Spencer Workers' Union Vs. Spen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ12
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Balakrishna, Ayyar, J., in W.P. No. 882 of 1952. That was a petition filed by the respondents, Spencer and Co., Ltd., under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Madras, prohibiting it from proceeding with the hearing of an appeal (Appeal-Bombay No. 91 of 1952) in the following circumstances. On 30th May, 1951, a large number of workers of the respondent Company went on strike because the management of the Company would not concede the several demands made on behalf of the workers by the Spencer's Workers' Union. On nth June, 1951, the Union wrote to the management that the, workers had decided to return to work. On the same day the management had written to the Union to say that they would be unable to re-engage persons who reported for work and that when the strike was withdrawn unconditionally, the management would call up various workers in batches. They also put up...
In Re: Sheik Muhammad Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad47; (1956)2MLJ427a
Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant in this case was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of the North Malabar division for offences under Sections 409, 467 and 471 read with Section 467 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R. I. and a, fine of Rs. 60, in default of payment of fine, to rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month under Section 409 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 467 I.P.C., and to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 471, read with Section 467 I.P.C. and the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are these: One Kunhi Parambath Matha who was living in Panur with her children used to receive money orders every month from her husband who was working in Burma. In the month of May 1954 she did not receive any money order from her husband. She wrote to her husband that she had not received any remittance from him. A complaint was made by her husband from ...
In Re: Kadan Kunhikannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad795; 1957CriLJ1423
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Malabar to set aside the conviction of the accused in S. T. No. 218 of 1955, on the file of theHonorary Special First Class Magistrate, Cannanore.The accused was prosecuted by the District Boardfor encroachment on the District Board property atthe' second furlong on Alavil to Azhikkode road. Heis said to have put up a compound wall enclosingcertain space belonging to the District Board. Hewas asked to remove the same by a notice, Ex. P-1.He did not remove it. Thereafter the District Board authorised the prosecution of the accused and the complaint was filed; Several adjournments were taken by the accused and 'on the last hearing date two witnesses were examined, P.W. 1 the Road Inspector, Highways, and P. W. 2, the revenue Inspector, District Board, Both of them speak to the fact that the accused had encroached upon the District Board property and in spite of the notice he has 'not removed it. These witnesses we...
V. Chockalinga Mudaliar Vs. State of Madras, Represented by Collector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ31
Govinda Menon, J.1. Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., before whom the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State questioned the correctness of the decision in Bommanna Chettiar v. The Province of Madras : AIR1945Mad442 , has referred these Second Appeals to the Bench, as in his opinion there seem to be scope for argument, and that is how these appeals have come before us.2. Though it is unnecessary to state in any detail, the facts, which are undisputed, for a proper appreciation of the points of law, arising, it is just necessary to refer to them in a cursory way. Four small plots in Salem Town were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, in the process of laying out certain roads in pursuance of the improvement of the town under the provisions of the Town Planning Act. For that purpose the notification informing the parties that these plots are to be acquired was made on 6th September, 1932, and an award fixing the price of the lands was made on 26th August, 1935. Not being content wi...
S.R.K. Ramaswami and anr. Vs. Komaravelu Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ200
Govinda Menon, J.1. There is nothing in Hindu Law, either on principle or on authority, prohibiting a father, at the time of a family partition from taking cash instead of landed property for his own and his minor children's share. Mr. D. Ramaswami Ayyangar argues that partition necessarily connotes a division of property and therefore each member is entitled to have an aliquot share of the property separated and given to him. In case where a member is sui juris and can contract for himself, it is on his own volition that he gives up the right to property and takes money, but in the case of a minor, the father cannot give up the son's rights in exchange for money. But in our opinion when the father acting on behalf of his minor son bonafide enters into a transaction by which in lieu of immoveable property he takes cash, there is nothing to be said against such an act. On the other hand, the taking of cash with the object of dissipating it and depriving the minor of the wherewithal woul...
N.K. Rajaraja Varman Thirumalpad and ors. Vs. K.K. Krishnan Nair and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ46
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode in O.P. Nos. 21 and 23 of 1951.2. The short point for determination both in the lower Court and here is whether a Malabar otti or othi is a usufructuary mortgage within the meaning of Section 9-A of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act IV of 1938.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that this othi is a usufructuary mortgage within the meaning of Section 9-A. Hence these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by the defeated mortgagees.4. In order to find out whether an othi falls within the ambit of Section 9-A, we must first of all find out what the incidents of an othi are.5. In Malabar the tenures as elsewhere fell roughly under three heads. There are a larger number of tenures extant even to-day though a larger number have become extinct. In fact the proceedings of the Court of Sadar Adalat at Madras noticed about 24 tenures. These tenures which ext...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›