Skip to content

Chennai Court July 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.

Jul 03 1957

Nilgiri Trading Co. by Its Managing Partner J. Nanja Gowder and ors. V ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-03-1957

Reported in: AIR1957Mad691; (1957)2MLJ27

1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 in O. S. No. 250 of 1951 in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Octacamund against a decree passed against them. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 7271, being the principal and interest due under four hundis, two of them dated 5-9-1948 for Rs. 500 and Rs. 2000 respectively, and two other hundis dated 27-10-1948 for Rs. 1500 and Rs. 2000 respectively executed by the 11th defendant as the managing partner of the first defendant company, namely, the Nilgiri Trading Co., in favour of one Seth Sunderdas Harbhaghavandas, and the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 28-11-1948 executed by him in favour of the same Sunderdass for Rs. 300.Defendants 2 to 10 are other partners of the defendant company. The due date for the first two hundis dated 5-9-1948 was 3-12-1948 and for the other two hundis the due date was 25-1-1349. Of these four hundis, three of them were endorsed by the said Sunderdass in favour of the Bank of ...


Jul 03 1957

In Re: P. Ommar and Co.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-03-1957

Reported in: [1957]8STC729(Mad)

Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 15 (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 800, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks.2. The facts are these : The appellant is the proprietor of Messrs. P. Ommar and Co., which was doing rice business in the city of Madras. The company did business independently and also as commission agents;it has a licence under Section 8 of the Act for the commission agency. In respect of its independent and retail sales, the return for the months of April, May and June, 1954, in A-3 form was duly submitted; but with respect to the wholesale business no return was submitted for the above months. This was discovered by the Commercial Tax Authorities. The fact of the failure to submit the return is not disputed. The accused who examined himself as a witness admits that with respect to the wholesale sales he did not submit the return because he was under the impression...


Jul 03 1957

A. Sambandhan Vs. Regional Traffic Superintendent (Personnel)southern ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-03-1957

Reported in: (1957)2MLJ541

ORDER1. The petitioner, an Assistant Station Master in the Southern Railways applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandmus or other appropriate writ, to avoid the effect of the order, dated 25th April 1952, issued by the first respondent, which, the petitioner complained, adversely affected his seniority in his cadre and was contrary to the rules in force governing seniority of the employees of his class in the State Railways .2. It was common ground that the conditions of service of railway employees like the petitioner were governed among other things by the statutory rules in the Indian Railway Establishment Code, to which I shall refer hereafter as the Code. These rule were originally promulgated in exercise of the power vested in the Governor-General-in-Council by Section 241(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, the provisions of which were analogous to those of Article 309 of the Constitution, Under Article 313 of the Constitution these stat...


Jul 03 1957

In Re: P. Omar and Co., Represented by P. Basha

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-03-1957

Reported in: (1957)2MLJ511

Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 15(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 800, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks.2. The facts are these. The appellant is the proprietor of Messrs. P. Omar & Co., which was doing rice business in the city of Madras. The company did business independently and also as commission agents. It has a licence under Section 8 of the Act for the commission agency. In respect of its independent and retail sales, the return for the months of April, May and June, 1954, in A-3 Form was duly submitted; but with respect to the wholesale business no return was submitted for the above months. This was discovered by the Commercial Tax authorities. The fact of the failure to submit the return is not disputed. The accused who examined himself as a witness admits that with respect to the wholesale sales he did not submit the return because he was under the impression tha...


Jul 02 1957

In Re: Marappa Goundar

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-02-1957

Reported in: AIR1959Mad26; (1958)IMLJ260

ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a Revision sought to be preferred against the order made by the learned District Munsif of Coimbatore in E. A No 1247 of 1956 in E. P. No. 77 of 1956 in O. S. No. 793 of 1952.2. The decree-holder Marakkal (first respondent in the lower Court) obtained a decree against the petitioner Marappa Counter. In pursuance of that decree the decree-holder took out execution proceedings and brought the properties of the petitioner to sale subject to a mortgage, The sale was held on 9-7-1956 and the successful auction purchaser is Rangaswami Goundcr (second respondent in the lower Court).Then the petitioner filed an application to set aside the sale beyond 30 days accompanied by an application to excuse delay under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In order to attract the provisions of Section 18, the petitioner contended that there was a Panchayat at the instance of some mediators between himself, the decree-holder and the mortgagee. Valliakkal and others. In that Panc...


Jul 02 1957

S.K. Kuttalingam Pillai Vs. S.V.N. Chinnakannu Pillai and anr.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-02-1957

Reported in: (1957)2MLJ506

Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This appeal is preferred by one of the share holders of a company against the order of the District Judge, before whom the winding up procecdings are pending, allowing interest at six per cent, per annum on the moneys overdrawn by another share holder who is one of the respondents to this appeal. He had overdrawn to the extent of Rs. 3,638-11-0. On an application made by the Official Liquidator, the Company Court directed the first respondent to pay back the amount with interest at 6 per cent, per annum. This appeal is preferred, not by the Official Liquidator who alone would be competent to prefer the appeal but by one of the share holders, on the ground that the rate of interest allowed by the District Judge was low and should have been 9 per cent, per annum. It is true that the first respondent in the reply notice given by him to another share holder Kuthalingam Pillai agreed to keep the moneys of the company in his hands at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum....


Jul 02 1957

Abdul Azeez Khan and ors. Vs. Appachi Goundar

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-02-1957

Reported in: (1957)2MLJ513

Rajagopalan, J.1. This is an application to revise the Order of the District Judge of Coimbatore passed under Section 12-B of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XXV of 1949.)2. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of the house in question and sought the eviction of the respondent from those premises on the grounds, that the respondent defaulted payment of rent and that the respondent denied the title of 'the Petitioners as owners. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the requirements of Section 7(2)(ii) as well as Section 7(2)(vi) of the Act were satisfied. With reference to Section 7(2)(vi) he held that the denial of title by the respondent was not bona fide. Eviction was ordered. The respondent thereupon appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore.3. During the pendency of the appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, the respondent applied for stay of execution of the order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the respondent. The pet...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial