Chennai Court February 1957 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.
Kaliammal Vs. G.N. Ramaswami Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad629
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Kalk-ammal, the defendant in O. S. No. 395 of 1952 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in I. A. No. 515 of 1955 allowing the second plaintiff, the respondent herein, to amend the plaint drastically on attaining majority, on the ground that the amendments involved only questions of law, and were, in his opinion, fit to be allowed.2. I have perused the entire records arid heard the learned counsel on both sides. Mr. Raja-raman. learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that even questions of law not raised in the original plaint should not be allowed to be raised by way of amendment, if they would totally change the cause of action, or subvert the frame of the original plaint, or set up contentions which were already known to the parties at the time of filing the original plaint but were not set up then.3. I agree generally with these propositions. But in this case, there is the fa...
Workers of Sagar Talkies (South India Cinema Employees' Association) V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1957
Reported in: (1957)ILLJ639Mad
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in W.P. No. 590 of 1953, filed by the management of Odeon Cinema, Madras, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Industrial tribunal, Madras, dated 24 October 1952 in industrial dispute No. 23 of 1952, and the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, in Appeal No. 111-77 of 1952, dated 2 August 1953, confirming the same.2. By G.O. Ms. No. 3361, Development, dated 4 August 1952, the Government referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Madras, a dispute between the workers of Sagar Talkies and the management of Odeon Cinema, Madras. The facts which led to this reference are briefly as follows:3. Raja V. Maheswar Rao and Raja V. Rajeswara Rao, two brothers, were the owners of a film theatre called Sagar Talkies. They were exhibiting pictures in the said theatre with a staff of about 27 workers. They leased the theatre and the talkie equipment to Isherda...
The Great Eastern Shipping Co., Ltd. Vs. E. Govindaswamy Chetty and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ98
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a suit (S.C.S. No. 8816 of 1952) filed in the Court of Small Causes at Madras by one E. Govindaswami Chetti, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 668-9-6 from the defendant, viz., the Great Eastern Shipping Co., Limited, and the Madras Port Trust, defendants 1 and 2 respectively, in the following circumstances:The plaintiff was a consignee of 219 bundles of wet salted cow-hides despatched from Calcutta to Madras per S.S. 'Avanee' belonging to the first defendant shipping company. These bundles bore the mark of the plaintiff ''EGC.' The ship arrived at the Madras harbour on 30th January, 1952 and the cargo intended for delivery at Madras was unloaded and the goods were delivered over by the Master of the ship to the Madras Port Trust authorities, who passed receipts, sometimes described as tally sheets, as prescribed by Section 39(3) of the Madras Port Trust Act. As the goods were unloaded in the course of 3 or 4 days, ...
V.D. Yesudasan and ors. Vs. Gurusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad555; 1957CriLJ980; (1957)1MLJ353
1. Petitioners 1 to 3 in Crl. M. P. No. 87 of 1956 (A. 5 to 7 in C. C. No. 96 of 1956) on the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate,' Koilpatti, are the petitioners herein. The fifth accused is a sub-inspector of police and accused 6 and 7 are police constables. The complainant belongs to the village of Athikinar hamlet of Shanmugapuram in the Tirunelveli district, After the Estates Abolition Act, there was trouble between the ryots in the village of Athinkinar and the proprietor, the Zamindar of Ettayapuram. Orders under Section 144 Crl. P. C., were passed against the complainant and the other residents of the village of Athikinar restraining them from interfering with the cultivation of certain lands belonging to the zamindar. That there was a dispute between the ryots and the inhabitants of the above village and the zamindar who is impleaded as the first accused in the above case is clear from the allegations contained in the complaint filed by the complainant. The matter was taken ...
Raman Chettiar and anr. Vs. Raman Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad680
1. The only question which it is necessary for us to decide for disposal of this appeal relates to the construction of the Accrual of Interest (War Time Adjustment) Act, which is Burma Act 11 of 1947. This Act came into force on 25-2-1947 and the operative provision of this Act is contained in Section 3 which runs thus:"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract of loan or mortgage deed no interest shall accrue or be payable upon any loan or mortgage other than usufructuary mortgage made in Burma before the 5th day of May 1942, for or in respect of the period which falls within the 8th day of December 1941, and the date on which the provisions of Section 7 of the Courts (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1943, cease to operate or are repealed-""Loan" is denned in Section 2 as meaning"a loan whether of money or in kind and includes any transaction's which is in the opinion of the Court in substance a loan."The present proceeding arise out...
Thangavelu Asari (Died) and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad534
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to properties which originally belonged to, and were enjoyed by one Mookan Asari, the husband of the defendant. The plaintiff is his brother. The defendant's husband died on 28th October 1943 issueless leaving considerable properties. The plaintiff, the brother, filed a suit against the widow, the defendant, O. S. No. 239 of 1944 in the Court of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram, claiming the properties on the ground that the properties belonged to an undivided joint family of which he was the surviving coparcener,The defendant contended that the properties were the separate properties of Mookan Asari. Eventually, the suit was compromised and a decree was passed on that compromise on 11th June 1945. The main terms of the compromise were that the plaintiff should succeed to and be in enjoyment of the properties set out in Schedule I to the compromise with all rights and privileges and that the defendant should succeed to, and be in enjoyment of th...
Sri Lakshmi and Co., Coffee Works, by Its Sole Proprietor, Srinivasa I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad126; (1957)2MLJ398
Ramanswami Gounder, J.1. This appeal arises out of O.P. No. 32 of 1953 filed by a creditor, Srinivasa Ayyar, for the purpose of declaring as invalid the mortgage executed in favour of another creditor, Swaminatha Ayyar, in execution of a decree which he had obtained against the debtor in O.S. No. 99 of 1952. That Swaminatha Ayyar is the respondent in this appeal, and so far as his debt is concerned, there is no controversy. The debt was owing to the respondent, Swaminatha Ayyar, on a promissory note which the debtor, Venkatesa Ayyar, had executed in his favour on 31st January, 1952, for a sum of Rs. 1,500. The consideration for that promissory note is proved by the evidence, particularly by the counterfoil of the cheque which was issued by Swaminatha Ayyar. But, what happened subsequently was this. Alleging that the debtor had entered into an agreement with him for the execution of a mortgage as a security for the debt, the creditor. Swaminatha Ayyar, filed O.S. No. 99 of 1952, on the ...
The Rayala Corporation (Mad) Ltd. Vs. Syed Bawkar and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad385
1. Tile only question which demands consideration from us in this batch of civil revision petitions is whether the Rent Controller has not the power to summon witnesses other than public servants by the issue of subpoenas. These petitions came originally before Govinda Menon J. who made the following Order ;"Post before a Bench whether the Rent Controller has any power inherent or otherwise to summon witnesses."Counsel in this case have not been able to draw our attention to any decided case, reported or unreported, dealing with this question. We are therefore left with the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules framed under the Act.2. The applications in question are under Section 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, for fixation of fair rent. But the same question would arise even as regards applications under other sections of the Act. It is obvious that though generally Controllers have been personal belonging to the judicial service they are not cour...
Maniam Hiria Gowder Vs. Naga Maistry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad620
Rajamannar, C.J.1. We have no doubt whatever that the principle underlying the long catena of cases of which it is sufficient to refer to Velu Padayachi v. Sivasooriam : AIR1950Mad444 and Viswanathan v. Namakchand Gupta : AIR1955Mad536 , will apply to this Case, the principle being that ail agreement of partnership which will entail a transfer of a licence or permit granted by the Government when there is an express provision prohibiting such a transfer is illegal and void ab initio. The case in : AIR1955Mad536 , related to an agreement of partnership in respect of a cinema business and the decision in : AIR1950Mad444 arose under the Abkari Act The doctrine on which these nothings are based is thus explained in : AIR1955Mad536 . When a penalty is imposed for contravention of a provision of law, that can be taken as an indication that the transaction which involves such a contravention is prohibited and therefore illegal; but when there is no imposition of a penalty, the question whethe...
Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Karumuthu Sivalingam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad597
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by Rama-swami Chetliar, the first defendant in O. Section No. 3 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Slvaganga, against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge adding the respondent, Karumuthu Sivalingam Chettiar, as a co-plaintiff in that suit. That was a suit filed by five persons against the. respondent and 30 other defendants.It was alleged in the plaint that the ancestors of defendants l to 13 endowed considerable properties for the maintenance of an Annadana Chattram in which pilgrims to Rameswaram were-allowed to rest, and Brahmins and others, among them, allowed to feed free; that there has been mismanagement, including alienations, regarding the trust properties by defendants 1 to 13, and that defendants 14 to 31 were the alienees in respect of some of the properties.The original plaintiffs, as persons interested in the trust and residents of the locality, where the Annadana Chattram was situated, had filed t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »