Chennai Court December 1958 Judgments
R.T. Perumal Vs. John DeavIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Mad43; [1960]30CompCas340(Mad)
1. R.T. Perumal the appellant in O.S.A. No. 11 of 1958 and D.R. Mahajan the appellant in O.S.A. No. 42 of 1958 are two shareholders in a limited company called the Nilgiri Neergundi Estates Company, Limited, hereinafter called the Neergundi Company which was incorporated on 22nd July, 1957 with a paid up capital of Rs. 3,67,076 consisting of 2000, 7 per cent, preference shares of Rs. 75 each, and 1,08,538 ordinary shares of Rs. 2 each. The main object of the company was growing and selling of tea and coffee. The company owned about 1447.62 acres of land out of which about 619 acres comprised coffee plantations and about 341 acres tea plantations. The company had no factory of its own in which the green tea leaf grown on its estate could be processed into marketable tea. The company used to sell its tea leaves to a neighbouring company called Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Company, Limited, which will hereinafter be referred to as Kil Kotagiri Company. Perumal held 14,900 ordinary ...
Tag this Judgment!R.T. Perumal Vs. John DeavIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1958
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ199
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. R.T. Perumal the appellant in O.S.A. No. 11 of 1958 and D.R. Mahajan the appellant in O.S.A. No. 42 of 1958 are two shareholders in a limited company called the Nilgiri Neergundi Estates Company, Limited, hereinafter called the Neergundi Company which was incorporated on 22nd July, 1957 with a paid up capital of Rs. 3,67,076 consisting of 2000, 7 per cent, preference shares of Rs. 75 each, and 1,08,538 ordinary shares of Rs. 2 each. The main object of the company was growing and selling of tea and coffee. The company owned about 1447.62 acres of land out of which about 619 acres comprised coffee plantations and about 341 acres tea plantations. The company had no factory of its own in which the green tea leaf grown on its estate could be processed into marketable tea. The company used to sell its tea leaves to a neighbouring company called Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Company, Limited, which will hereinafter be referred to as Kil Kotagiri Company. Perumal ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Shanmugam (Kandan Touring Talkies) Vs. M. Arumugam, Proprietor, Pra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1958
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ66
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., in Writ Petition No. 754 of 1958. The dispute is between two proprietors of touring cinemas. The appellant, T. Shanmugam, is the proprietor of Kandan Touring Talkies. The contesting respondent Mr. M. Arumugam, who will be referred to in this judgment as the respondent, is the proprietor of Prabhat Talkies. Each of them wanted to run a tourning cinema in Kaveripakkam village in the district of North Arcot. To follow the facts and the contentions of the contesting parties it is necessary to refer to the material provisions of the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act, IX of 1955 and the rules made thereunder. Under Section 3 of the Act, no person ordinarily shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. The licensing authority is the District Collector, though the Government may by notification appoint some other author...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Saroja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad190; 1959CriLJ613; (1959)1MLJ193
1. These two matters have come up for orders before me today at the instance of the office. The facts were briefly these :2. Two women called Saroja, aged 24, and Alagu, aged 22, were convicted under Section 12(1) of the Madras Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Pudukottai, in C. C. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1958, on his file and were directed to be detained in the Vigilance Home, Madras, in lieu of imprisonment, for three years and four years respectively. They were found loitering opposite to the Madurai Lodge in Thirumayam Road in Pudu-kottai Town, at midnight on 9-5-1958, and soliciting people for promiscuous sexual intercourse.One of the men so solicited was P.W. 2, Senthil Nathan a merchant printing books. P.W. 3 was repelled at the shameless solicitation to him or sexual intercourse by these women, and so did not accede to their wishes P.W. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Taluk Station, who was going along the street, arrested tbe two women, and, aft...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.V. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. M.S.M. Umayal Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad283; (1959)1MLJ282
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal against the preliminary decree for dissolution and taking up of accounts of the partnership passed by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in O.S. No. 104 of 1949. The defendant is the appellant.2. Viswanathan Chettiar and Muthuraman Chettiar, who were two divided brothers, carried on money lending business in partnership at Minhbyu, Rangoon and Dedaye. The former two businesses were ultimately dissolved and the assets integrated with the Dedaye firm. Muthuraman Chettiar died first, i.e., on 13-4-1926 leaving his widow, the respondent as his sole heir. The business, however, continued. The respondent thereupon stepped into the shoes of her deceased husband and carried on business with Viswanathan Chettiar. Ex. B. 70 is a deed of partnership dated 10-12-1941, entered into between the respondent and Viswanathan Chettiar, the defendant's adoptive father.There is no doubt that the partnership between them was from the date of death of Muthuraman Chet...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sinnathambi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ289
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a Revision filed against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sub-Magistrate of Pollachi in C.C. No. 9172 of 1958, which were confirmed by the learned District Magistrate of Coimbatore in C.A. No. 556 of 1958. The Revision Petitioner was sentenced under Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in that he was arrested with M.O. I tin, which contained six bottles of arrack at about 8 P.M. on 19th October, 1958, in the cross-cut road in Valparai limits. The correctness of this conviction was not canvassed before the lower appellate Court t but only the sentence was attacked as excessive. The learned District Magistrate refused to interfere with the sentence on the ground that the possession of a considerable quantity of arrack could only have been for sale to others. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal. Hence this Revision in which the severity of the sentence is press...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. Sulaika Beevi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Mad81
1. This appeal arises from the decree in O. S. No. 15 of 1954, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram, declaring that the suit village of Neriyandooval in Mudukulathur taluk, Ramanathapuram Dt. was one to which the provisions of Madras Act XXX of 1947 and the Notifications thereunder would not apply and that the appellant could not interfere with the respondents' possession of the same. The State of Madras, which was the first defendant to the action, is the appellant to the appeal.2. Neriyandooval was one of the 92-3/4 villages in Perungaranai Vattam which was a Dharmasanam grant by the ancient Pandyan King Sundarapandian to certain Brahmins. It is conceded that it is not an inam estate under the provisions of the Madras Act 26 of 1948. The appellant issued a notification under the provisions of Madras Act 30 of 1947, for reducing the rent. Thereupon the 9th respondent filed an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution i...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. N.T. Kathirvelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad518; 1959CriLJ1444
Somasundaram, J1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal pf the respondent on a charge of not paying the tax due for the quarter. There is no doubt about the fact that on 4-10-1955 the lorry in question, i. e., M. D. J. 832 was found on the road. It was noticed by the Inspector and on subsequent verification it was found that the tax for the vehicle was not paid for the quarter.2. It may also be stated that M. D. J. 2025, another vehicle, has been substituted for this vehicle, as this vehicle was condemned as unfit for use, and for the vehicle M. D. J. 2025 tax has been paid for the entire quarter. The question is whether the payment of tax for the entire quarter for the subsequent vehicle exonerates the payment of tax for the vehicle M. D. J. 832, which was found on the road on 4-10-1955.3. The finding of the vehicle on the road on the 4th shows that this vehicle used the road, and when once a vehicle is put on the road, it has got to pay the tax for that quarter. But if...
Tag this Judgment!Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad351; (1959)1MLJ318
1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment of Panchapakesa Ayyar J. disposing of O. P. No. 181 of 1953 and O. P. No. 6 of 1954, on the Original Side of this Court. The former petition was filed by the State of Madras for passing a decree in terms of the award, Ex. P. 6, made by the arbitrator, Mr. B Somayya, a retired Judge of this court, on 2-10-1952. The latter O. P. was filed by the Vellore Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., for setting aside the award under Section 30(a) of the Arbitration Act, or, in the alternative, for remitting the award to the arbitrator and directing him to reconsider the matter under Section 16(l)(c) of the Act. The learned Judge dismissed the latter petition and ordered the former.2. Though three grounds were urged before Panchapakesa Ayyar J. for setting aside the award or remitting it, learned counsel for the Electric Supply Corporation before us urged only one ground, namely, that the arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings by taking into account ...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Syed Haji Abdul Rahiman and Co., Madras Vs. C.H. Kizar Mohamed an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad357
P.V. Rajamannar C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Ramaswami Gounder J. in a suit filed on the original side of this court, C. S. No. 233 of 1950, by the respondents, C.H. Kizar Mohammad and Co., in the following circumstances. The plaintiffs are a registered firm of merchants carrying on lungi business in Madras. The defendants are a firm of merchants carrying on business in Moore Street, Madras. The plaintiffs alleged that their business consisted in the manufacture and sale of a special class of cloth known as lunghi, kylie and sarangs, that their business had been established and had been in existence for over 80 years and their goods have become well known in many places and territories; that from about the year 1913, the plaintiffs had been using for their goods, a trade mark the outstanding feature of which was a chair printed on a label.A specimen of the label was appended to the plaint and marked as Ex. A. The plaintiffs alleged that their goods with t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »