Chennai Court January 1958 Judgments
S. Ratnasami Mudaliar Vs. Ponnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ427
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J. 1. The first defendant is the appellant. The appeal itself at this stage is confined to items 10, 11,17,18, 24,2 7 to 30, 36 to 41 and 44 to 47 of the schedule to the plaint. It is common ground that these are all wet lands. In paragraph 11 of the written statement filed in the suit the first defendant pleaded that he was a lessee in possession of all these items, and the plea in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the written statement was that he was a cultivating tenant within the meaning of Act XIV of 1952. After the first defendant filed his written statement the plaintiffs obtained permission and amended the plaint, introducing paragraph 17(a) and in para 21(d)(1) the plaintiffs as the basis for the alternative relief they asked for, that if it was found that the first defendant was a tenant under the plaintiffs of the items specified above, he would still be liable to be evicted and that the plaintiffs were still entitled to get possession. 2. Issue 4 of the issues fr...
Tag this Judgment!Velu Pillai Vs. Sevuga Perumal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad392; (1958)1MLJ300
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 19th June, 1956, the District Munsif of Tirumagalam passed an order holding that E.P. No. 297 of 1955 was barred by limitation and that the defendant was entitled to the refund of a sum of Rs. 7 which he had paid on 13th February, 1956. The decree-holder who seeks to canvass the correctness of this order in revision filed a petition, which has been numbered as S.R. No. 17267. Under Rule 41-A(2) of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court, such a petition has to be presented within ninety days from the date of the order complained of. The same rule empowers the Court to excuse the delay where sufficient cause is shown to its satisfaction. In the present case there was a delay of 268 days in filing the petition. The only ground on the basis of which I am invited to excuse the delay is that the petitioner mislaid the bundle in his village. That, in my opinion, is not a sufficient reason for excusing the delay.2. When I expressed this view, learned Counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliammal Alias Thayammal Vs. Pongiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ340
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This appeal was posted before Govinda Menon, J., (as he then was). He has, because of divergence of views between Judges, regarding whether notes of a local inspection made by a Court should be prepared and kept on record or not and whether the failure to do so would vitiate the judgment or not, referred this Second Appeal to a Bench for being decided by it. That is how it has come before us.2. The facts were briefly these : O.S. No. 107 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, was filed by one Kaliammal alias Thayammal, for a declaration of her easementary right to use the suit pathway ABC marked green in the suit plan, to go to her land S. No. 44-C and to take her men, cattle and carts along it, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from obstructing her and her men from walking along or taking men and cattle and carts along the said pathway, A B C and for costs. The suit was stoutly resisted by the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnamani Nadar and anr. Vs. Devagirubai Rajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ93
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition seek to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tutigorin granting leave to the respondents to sue in forma pauperis. The plaint in the case contains eight schedules of properties alleged to have been alienated by the father of the respondents. Schedule 1 consists of a house in Tuticorin town in which the family of the plaintiffs resides and which is admitted to be worth Rs. 25,000 though there is a mortgage on this property to an extent of Rs. 20,000. Schedule 1-A consists of a small ice factory and. items in Schedules 2 to 8 are properties which have been alienated by the father of the plaintiffs. The main relief claimed in the suit is setting aside the alienations in so far as the plaintiff's share is concerned. The plaintiffs claim to be Hindus. The learned Subordinate Judge quite properly omitted to take into account the items in Schedules 2 to 8 because they are in the possession of the alienees a...
Tag this Judgment!Karumuthu Sivalingam Chettiar Vs. A. Krishnaswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ142
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul based on an award. The objection of Mr. Ramaswami Ayyangar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the lower Court proceeded to pass judgment and grant a decree in terms of the award without complying with the provisions of Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. It is admitted that the award was produced into Court on 23rd February, 1956, and that the defendant had 30 days, under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, from that date to file objections to the award. Mr. Ramaswamy Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, further contends that even if the date of service on the defendant in the suit, which according to the records of the Court, is 2nd February, 1956, is taken to be correct, the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have waited for 30 days from that date before he could pass a judgment in terms of the award. Mr. Krishnamurthi, learned Counsel...
Tag this Judgment!K. Somasundaram Vs. Gopal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1958
Reported in: 1958CriLJ904; (1958)IMLJ390
A.S. Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This case was directed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to be posted before a Bench on the recommendation of Ramaswami, J. that a Bench should hear and dispose of the matter in view of the then existing conflict regarding the legal questions involved in the case between the judgment of Somasundaram, J. in Ramanatha v. State : AIR1957Mad466 , and a judgment of a Bench of this Court in Tirumal Thevar v. State 1957 Mad WN (Cri) 165 : A.I.R. 1958 Mad 135 (B), and the judgment of Ramaswami, J. in Arumugam Solathirayar v. Ponnalagu Pandrar 1957 Mad WN Cri. 125 : A.I.R. 1958 Mad 127 (C), and the Supreme Court judgment indirectly bearing on the question in Narayana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1957 2 M.L.J. 15 short notes (D).Since the reference was made to this Bench, as the learned Public Prosecutor has urged, Somasundaram, J. has, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment cited above, modified his original view, in Public Prosecutor v. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Proprietrix of the Indian Process Chemical Laboratory and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ308
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are Revision Cases which have been filed against the convictions and sentences by the learned Eighth Presidency Magistrate, G.T., Madras, in C.C. Nos. 13680 and 13747 of 1956.2. The facts are: The complaints in these cases have been filed by the Drugs Inspector, Madras City against Messrs. Indian Process Chemical Laboratory, 283, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras 1, the proprietrix of the said firm Srimati Krishna Bhamini Devi and the Manager of the said firm Sri V.S. Krishnamurthy.3. The charge is that this firm has been stocking and exhibiting for sale and distributing drugs manufactured by their principal firm at Bangalore, Indian Process Chemical Laboratory. Tincture Digitalis, B. P. was one of the drugs so stocked and distributed. Samples of the Tincture Digitalis were taken by the Drugs Inspector, Madras and sent for analysis to the Government Analyst, Guindy, and were found to be sub-standard quality. The accused are thus said to have violated the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Appannan Vs. V.N. Subbanna Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ530
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Appanna Mudaliar against the orders of the Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A. No. 358 of 1956, in C.M.A. No. 4 of 1955 on his file, impleading one Subbanna Goundar, the petitioner in that interlocutory application, as the fourth respondent in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. That was a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by this petitioner, who had been adjudicated an insolvent in I.P. No. 40 of 1952, for quashing that order of adjudication. One T. G. Ayyaswami Mudaliar had filed the insolvency petition for adjudicating the petitioner insolvent, alleging that he owed him some Rs. 3,000 and odd, and that the insolvent owed diverse other sums to diverse other creditors, and was unable to pay his creditors, and had committed acts of insolvency within three months before the filing of the petition. The resourceful insolvent-petitioner promptly deposited the amount of Rs. 3,125-10-0 claimed by Ayyasami as due to him. Ayyaswami gladl...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Swamy Vs. K. Sultan Mohideen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ355
1. The second appeals came up before us on a reference by one of us, as the main question involved, the extent to which Section 73 of the Trade Marks Act governed the forum for instituting suits in a passing off action, in respect of goods covered by a registered trade mark, was not settled by any decision of this Court. The appeals themselves arose out of proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 1394 of 1950 on the file of the City Civil Court. The defendant, judgment-debtor under that decree, is the appellant before us. The decree in that suit was ultimately passed ex parte the defendant. The decree granted the following reliefs, which were what the plaintiff had specifically asked for:(1) that the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 100 as and for damages;(2) that the defendant, his agents, or dealers or servants, be and are hereby restrained by injunction from manufacturing selling or offering for sale snuff under the offending trade name, trade mark, label or any...
Tag this Judgment!G. Narayanaswami Naidu Vs. C. Krishnamurthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad343; (1958)1MLJ367
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred to this Court under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act from the order of the Election Tribunal, Nagapattinam, in Election Petition No. 178 of 1957 before it.2. The election in question was to the Mayuram constituency of the Madras State Assembly, and two members--one to the general seat and one reserved for a member of the scheduled caste--had to be elected. The election was held on nth March, 1957. At this election, G. Narayanaswami Naidu and P. Jayaraj who were the respondents in the election petition were respectively elected to the general and reserved seats. The question at issue in the petition related to the propriety of the rejection of the nomination of C. Krishnamurthi, the election petitioner. First February, 1957, was the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nominations. On that date one of the candidates K. Krishnamurthi--not a party to these proceedings--objected to the nomination ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »