Chennai Court February 1958 Judgments
Advocate Cuddalore; Collector of South Arcot Vs. an Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1321
Ramachandra Iyer J.1. The respondent is an advocate practising at Cuddalore, South Arcot District. He was appointed to the office of the Public Prosecutor for a period of three years from 1952 and in February 1955 his. term was extended for a further term of three' years. In the year 1956 certain differences arose between the respondent and the Collector of the district. The respondent appears to have felt that by an unwarranted interpretation of the rules the fee for the work done by him was reduced, and on 9-8-1956 he tendered the resignation of his office. The resignation was accepted by the Government to G. O, 2585, Home, dated 13-9-1956, with effect from 9-8-1956.2. While the respondent was in office as Public Prosecutor the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (prosecution) consulted him on 7-9-1955 on the advisability of launching a prosecution against certain office-bearers of the Srimushnam Co-opera-live Society for alleged defalcation. Records relating to the alleged mi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of South Arcot Vs. an Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ305
Ramachandra Ayyar, J.1. The respondent is an advocate practising at Cuddalore, South Arcot District. He was appointed to the office of the Public Prosecutor for a period of three years from 1952 and in February, 1955, his term was extended for a further term of three years. In the year 1956 certain differences arose between the respondent and the Collector of the District. The respondent appears to have felt that by an unwarranted interpretation of the Rules the fees for the work done by him was reduced, and on 9th August, 1956, he tendered the resignation of his office. The resignation was accepted by the Government in C.O. No. 2585, Home, dated 13th September, 1956, with effect from 9th August, 1956.2. While the respondent was in office as Public Prosecutor the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Prosecution) consulted him on 7th September, 1955, on the advisability of launching a prosecution against certain office-bearers of the Srimushnam Co-operative Society for alleged de...
Tag this Judgment!Lion Automobile Service Co. Vs. State Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ300
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is a transport company plying five buses or stage carriages between Tirunelveli and Srivilliputhur via Sankarankoil. The second respondent is another transport company running thirteen buses between Madurai and Rajapalayam. The map shows that the routes on which these two companies are operating overlap in the section between Srivilliputhur and Rajapalayam.2. On 17th September, 1952, the second respondent applied to the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, for permits that would enable it to extend the operation of three of its buses from Rajapalayam to Sankarankoil. On 16th April, 1953, the Regional Transport Officer, Madurai, notified that the application of the second respondent would be taken up for consideration and that representations, if any, should be made to him before 8th May, 1953. On 29th April, 1953, the Regional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli, published a similar notification. On 12th May, 1953, the Regional Transport Officer, R...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishnaswamy Iyengar Vs. N. Vedavalli Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad218
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J. 1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 2042 of 1954 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the petitioner. This civil revision petition arises out of an order for rateable distribution passed amongst the various decreeholders who had obtained decrees against one Vedavalli Animal. The petitioner has impleaded the judgment debtors as well as the rival decree-holders in this petition. The plaintiff had obtained a decree in O. S. No. 2042 of 1954 on the basis of a promissory note executed by Vedavalli Ammal in renewal of earlier debts incurred in connection with the marriage of her daughter, Rukmani. To that suit Vedavalli and her four daughters were made parties. In due course the plaintiff obtained a money decree and in execution of that decree he filed E. P. No. 681 of 1955 on 4-10-1955 for attaching the equity of redemption in certain properties which belonged to the judgment debtors. Attachment was ordered on 23-10-55. In the meantime the mortgagee in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Blackwood and Sons Ltd. and ors. Vs. A.N. Parasuraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad410
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The relief sought in both these suits is the same, namely, injunction arising out of an alleged infringement of copyright with other ancillary reliefs such as damages, accounts etc. The two suits have been tried together because of certain questions of law which arise in them but as the farts are necessarily different they have to be set out separately.2. C. S. No. 54 of 1955 : The plaintiffs are Messrs. Macmillan and Co. Ltd. while the defendants are a firm of publishers carrying on business in Madras under the name and style of 'The Little Flower and Co.' Madras. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to the copyright by assign-ment in respect of two works (1) The Return of the Native by Thomas Hardy, and (2) A collection of stories by Rabindranath Tagorc published under the style of 'Stories from Tagore'. The Return of the Native was prescribed by the University of Madras for the B. A. degree examination 1956, Part I English.The defendants published...
Tag this Judgment!Srimathi Mary Joseph Vs. Tayub Mahamed Hajee Moosa and Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad86; (1958)2MLJ538
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a second appeal by one Mary Joseph, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 178 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif of Periyakulam, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif and allowing the appeal and dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.2. Krishnaswami Nayudu J. before whom this second appeal came up for hearing in the first instance, referred it to a Bench, as he considered that Horwill J. in Jamatraj v. Thukkappa, 1944 1 Mad LJ 376: AIR 1944 Mad 391 had taken the view that under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, the phrase ''Transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith' must have paid at least a portion of the consideration in the shape of money and that, otherwise, he could not take advantage of Section 27(b). As he considered that an important question of law as to the interpretation of the clause 'paid his money in good faith' under...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kandaswami Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1958
Reported in: (1958)IIMLJ41; [1958]9STC542(Mad)
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. These are two connected revisions preferred against the orders made by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate of Salem in C. C. Nos. 663 and 664 of 1957 on his file.2. The petitioners have been charged for contravention of Section 15(2) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act in that they, dealers in coir and ropes, have wilfully submitted an incomplete and incorrect (and therefore an untrue) return in Form A for the years 1947-48 and 1948-49. The accused denied the offence, when questioned under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They raised four preliminary objections, viz., (1) that it is not alleged, in conformity with Clause (c) of Section 15 as it stands at present, that the accused had fraudulently evaded the payment of the tax or the compounding fee ; (2) that there is already a compounding order under Section 16 of the Act and that this bars a prosecution for the same offence ; (3) that Rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Velayudham Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad394; (1958)2MLJ178
1. In I. P. No. 1 of 1953, a petition by a creditor, one Muthuswamy Goundan was adjudged insolvent. He owed a debt to another creditor on a promissory note which he had executed on 15-8-1950. The creditor to whom the debt on that promissory note was due tendered proof of his claim. Another creditor, who is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition objected to proof of the claim being received. The petitioner contended before the Official Receiver Madurai, in whom the properties of the insolvent had vested, that the debt was not true and, secondly, that the debt was barred by time. On the first point, the Official Receiver held that the debt was true. On the question relating to limitation, the relevant facts were these.The promissory note was executed on 15-8-1950. The petition to adjudge the debtor insolvent was presented on 5-1-1953. The adjudication was on 15-1-1954. Proof was tendered in 1956. The debtor had executed a sale deed in 1952. There was a reference to a promissory n...
Tag this Judgment!E.V. Ramaswami, Leader Dravida Kazhagam Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1958
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1421; (1958)IIMLJ425
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an application Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 32 of 1952, praying that this Court might be pleased to take such action against the respondent as it thinks fit and necessary and pass suitable orders for contempt of the Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli.2. On 21-10-1957, the District Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli committed the petitioner for taking his trial at the Court of Session, Tiruchirapalli, on a charge containing three counts under Section 117, IPC read with other sections of the Penal Code. That case was registered as Sessions Case No. 93 of 1957 by the Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli. The charges related to three speeches made by the petitioner on 5th, 13th and 20th October, 1957, at Kulitalai, Pasupathipalayam and Tiruchirapalli Town respectively, wherein the petitioner was alleged to have incited the public to kick, stab and kill Brahmins and set fire to their houses.The case was taken up for trial by the Sessions Judge,...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswamy Vs. N. Ketty Muthu Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ419
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In the second week of October, 1955, an election was held to the Municipal Council, Erode, from the 14th ward of that town. The polling took place on 10th October, 1955. The votes were counted on nth October, 1955, when it was found that Ketty Muthu Goundan had obtained 398 votes while his rival Kuppuswamy had obtained 447 votes. The latter was, therefore, declared duly elected. On 18th October, 1955,the defeated candidate filed an election petition to set aside the election. On 13th November, 1957, the Principal Subordinate Judge and Election Commissioner, Coimbatore, set aside the election and ordered a fresh election to be held: Kuppuswamy has filed this revision petition to set aside the order of the Election Commissioner.2. In order to understand the contentions of the parties it is necessary to mention some other facts. Exhibit A-3 is a copy of the electoral roll for the ward and it is dated 20th May, 1955. Between 20th May, 1955 and nth October, 1955, thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »