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.
S. Subulal Sahib Vs. N. Perianna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ55
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The learned Judge was wrong in dismissing the application under Order VIII-A, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the third party. Generally speaking, there will not be such a privity in a claim falling under Order VIII -A which the defendant sets up against a third party. If there was direct privity then the third party would have been a necessary party. I do not see how the plaintiff will in any way be hurt if the application is allowed and G. Ramaswami Reddiar is made a third party. If the defendant is able to prove his case that Ramaswami Reddiar undertook to discharge the plaintiff's claim, then it would only mean that there will be two sources from which the plaintiff's claim could be satisfied. In my opinion this is a case to which Order VIII-A, Rule 1 will apply and the learned Subordinate Judge wrongly refused to exercise the jurisdiction which vested in him under that ...
Management of Ambis Cafe Vs. K. Thangavelu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad617; (1957)IILLJ676Mad
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The first respondent Thangavelu and one Venkatachalam were employees of the petitioner, a proprietary concern, running a hotel with boarding and lodging facilities. The first respondent was one of the permanent employees. On 10th October 1953, there was a quarrel between these two employees when from words they passed to blows. The management, no doubt, came to know about it the same day, and there was even an attempt made, to get the police to intervene to stop the fight. On 11th October 1953 two of the guests of the hotel complained to the management about the inconvenience caused to them by the unedifying quarrel between the first respondent and Venkatachalam. The management called upon both the workmen to explain their conduct, and pending an enquiry into the charges, both were placed under suspension the same day. It was common ground that at that time an appeal was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, preferred against the award of the Industrial T...
In Re: Murugan Alias Thannasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad451; 1958CriLJ1196
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a revision sought to be preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sub-Magistrate of Udamalpet In C. O. No. 2776 of 1956 which were confirmed by the learned District Magistrate of Coimbatore in C A. No. 56 of 1957.2. On information received apparently that the accused was indugling in illicit distillation activities the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 1, proceeded to the village of the accused, arrested him and enquired him. The accused took the Sub-Inspector to a place in front of his house and pointed out a spot. It was dug up and M. O. 1 a pot with fermented wash kept buried' there was taken out. The accused was charged' for an. offence under Section 4 (1) (G) of the Madras Prohibition Act. The offence having been proven, the conviction and sentence of a fine of Rs. 8U followed.3. The two points taken before me are that when the Sub-Inspector had proceeded to the village on information received apparently that the accused was indulging in...
Kuppammal and ors. Vs. Devendra Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ134
ORDERRamaswami Gounder, J.1. This is a revision filed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, who fixed the upset price of the properties to be sold at both Rs. 2,500 given by the defendants and also at Rs. 5,000 as given by the plaintiff. This practice of fixing both the figures as the upset price has been condemned by my Lord the Chief Justice in C.R.P. No. 1382 of 1956. This is what the learned Chief Justice observed:What the learned Judge has done is to direct the upset price to be fixed at both the figures given by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor respectively. This is absolutely unworkable.The present case falls directly within that decision, and so it is clear that the Subordinate Judge was in error in fixing both the amounts as the upset price. What he should have done, as required by Order 21, Rule 66(2)(e), is to have mentioned both the figures in the sale proclamation without fixing any upset price. That this is the proper procedure is also indic...
The Management of Ambis Cafe Vs. K. Thangavelu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ393
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The first respondent Thangavelu and one Venkatachalam were employees of the petitioner, a proprietary concern, running a hotel with boarding and lodging facilities. The first respondent was one of the permanent employees. On 10th October, 1953, there was a quarrel between the two employees when from words they passed to blows. The Management, no doubt, came to know about it the same day, and there was even an attempt made to get the police to intervene to stop the fight. On nth October, 1953, two of the guests of the hotel complained to the Management about the inconvenience caused to them by the unedifying quarrel between the first respondent and Venkatachalam. The Management called upon both the workmen, to explain their conduct, and pending an enquiry into the charges, both were placed under suspension the same day. It was common ground that at that time an appeal was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, preferred against the award of the Industrial T...
A.V. Subbu Chetty Vs. C.V. Munuswamy Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ161
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This is a revision peition filed against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 87 of Madras Act XIX of 1951 directing delivery of certain properties in favour of the respondent to this revision. He obtained a certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, and on the basis of that certificate a petition was filed before the Magistrate for delivery. Both before the Deputy Commissioner and before the Magistrate the contention of the present petitioner was that he was not an ex-trustee or ex-officer of the institution and therefore he cannot be ousted from the possession of the property. The Deputy Commissioner found that the property belonged to the temple and isssued the certificate without recording a finding whether the present petitioner was an ex-trustee. Similarly, the Magistrate who ordered delivery did not give a finding on any evidence placed before him that the present petitioner was an ex-trustee and therefore liable to be evicted un...
P.S. Rama Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ507
1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act has clearly to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the department.2. The assessee was a tanning expert. For the previous year ended 31st March, 1947 (the assessment year 1947-48) he filed a return on 21st February, 1951 estimating his profits from business at Rs. 550. This return was filed admittedly without a notice under Section 22(2) having been issued to the assessee. The income as set out in the return was scrutinsed after enquiry and the Income Tax Officer rejected the return and estimated the assessee's income at Rs. 30,000. We are not now concerned with the correctness of the quantum of the assessment but only with its legality. From the order of assessment the assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and there urged that the assessment was illegal and invalid. The ground for this contention was that as the return that he had filed declared an income below the taxable limit ...
P. S. Rama Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR458(Mad)
This reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act has clearly to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department.The assessee was a tanning expert. For the previous year ended 31st March, 1947, (the assessment year 1947-48) he filed a return on 21st February, 1951, estimating his profits from business at Rs. 550. This return was filed admittedly without a notice under section 22(2) having been issued to the assessee. The income as set out in the return was scrutinised after inquiry and the income-tax Officer rejected the return and estimated the assessees income at Rs. 30,000. We are not now concerned with the correctness of the quantum of the assessment but only with its legality. From the order of assessment the assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and there urged that the assessment was illegal and invalid. The ground for this contention was that as the return that he had filed declared an income below the taxable limit it w...
In Re: Shree Bajrang Jute Mills Ltd., Guntur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1962Mad218
Rajamannar, C.J. (1) Three points were pressed upon us by Mr. E. Venkatesan, learned counsel for the appellant in this case. The appeal is against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., confirming the order of the Railway Rates Tribunal on a complaint made by the appellant company engaged in the manufacture of jute goods. The first point is that though the Tribunal held that it would be fair and reasonable that there should be a concessional rate, namely, 12 ( per cent, less than the standard rate for haulage over 500 miles, the Tribunal did not give effect to this concession with effect from the date of the complaint. The Tribunal dealt with this question and in the exercise of its discretion held that there were no circumstances which would justify the grant '*'J'j'S''''1/2'JjS*JjS(r)_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________...
A.S. Sankara Pandia thevar Vs. Syed Abdul Rahman Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad512; (1957)2MLJ77
ORDERRajamannar, C.J.1. The, respondent (plaintiff) brought a suit for the recovery of a certain sum of money from the petitioner (defendant) find obtained an ex parte decree On the 23rd of March 1950. The defendant subsequently filed a suit, O. S. No. 137 of 1950, in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirunelveli for a declaration that the said ex parte decree was not binding on him and for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from executing that decree.It was held in that suit that by reason of the fraud of the plaintiff summons had not been served on the defendant and, therefore, the decree was liable to be set aside. On that finding the suit was decreed. There was an appeal but the appeal was unsuccessful. The plaintiff thereupon filed two applications, in effect seeking to have his suit restored and proceeded with. The petitions were ordered and the suit was revived. The above two civil revision petitions seek to revise the order of the learned Judge.2. The only question which...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »