Chennai Court February 1958 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.
Brahmayya and Co. Official Liquidators Vs. K. Srinivasan Thangirayar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad122
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar J. on the original side of this Court in Appln. No. 3639 of 1951 in O. P. No. 192 of 1947. The appellants who were the applicants before the learned Judge are the Official Liquidators of the Hanuman Bank Ltd.. which is now under liquidation. The application was filed under the provisions of Sections 45-A and 45-B of the Banking Companies Act to direct the first respondent to pay both personally and out of the properties charged to the bank and his other properties a sum of Rs. 34,000, with further interest thereon from the date of application till the date of realisation and for certain other reliefs.The other respondents are the children of the first respondent and it is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to set out the nature of the reliefs sought against them. One Munia Servai was a constituent of the bank having overdraft facilities and in connection with his overdraft he executed a deed ...
In Re: Pinapala Venkateswarlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ337
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. We agree with the office that clause 15 of the Letters Patent does apply. The application to amend the decree in the Second Appeal certainly invoked the civil appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. If so leave of the learned Judge who dismissed the application to amend the decree was necessary under Rule 95 of the Appellate Side Rules read with clause 15 of the Letters Patent. No such leave was asked for or obtained. The appeal is incompetent....
Al.Sp.Pl. Thirunavukkarasu Chettiar and ors. Vs. State of Madras by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ596
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 72 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore, against the judgment and decree dismissing their suit with costs.2. The facts are briefly these: The plaintiffs, who were the present owners of six villages of the Tanjore Palace Estate, had filed that suit for a declaration that the suit properties, six villages out of the 199 villages of the Tanjore Palace Estate, confiscated by the Government of Madras on 18th October, 1856, along with certain properties of the Tanjore Rajah, and given back on 21st August, 1862, to the widows and heirs of the Rajah by the British Government, on their memorial to the Queen and Parliament, were not inam 'estates' within the meaning of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, read with Section 3(2)(d) of Madras Act I of 1908, and were not capable therefore of being taken over by the Government under the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948, the Estates Abolition Act, and for a permane...
P. Murugayya Pillai Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ330
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, whereby he held that the petitioner had not sufficiently complied with the order of the District Court of East Tanjore at Nagapattinam in C.M.P. No. 10 of 1955. That order of the District Judge was passed in an appeal preferred against the decree of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, in O.S. No. 91 of 1953. The purport of the order was that the appellant was to deposit costs of suit into the lower Court and furnish security in the shape of immoveable properties for the amount of the decree as a condition of stay of further proceedings. The time given by the appellate Court for furnishing security and depositing costs ended with 20th March, 1956. Admittedly, costs of suit were deposited within the time allowed and a draft bond containing the description of the property proposed to be given as security was put into Court by the petitioner on 20th March, 1956, the last...
Jagannatha Iyengar (Died) and anr. Vs. S.P. Mariappan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad518; (1958)1MLJ406
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Jagannath Ayyangar, since decased, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 107 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Srivilliputtur for revising and setting aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A.S. No. 97 of 1951.2. The facts are briefly these : The petitioner had filed O.S. No. 107 of 1950, originally as a Small Cause suit, for recovery from the respondent Mariappa Chettiar a sum of Rs. 227-12-3 as arrears of rent due to him for a shop rented out to the respondent on a rent of Rs. 5 per month. That shop had been usufructuarily mortgaged to the petitioner by the Jeer of the Manavala Mamuni Mutt of Srivilliputtur for a period of five years from 23rd May, 1941, for a sum of Rs. 550, without however, obtaining the sanction under Section 76 of he Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act On that ground, the usufructuary mortgage in favour of The petitioner was held to be void on 31s...
Ramanatha Chettiar and ors. Vs. Somasundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ94
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 79 of 1954 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sivaganga, for revising and setting aside the order of the learned District Munsiff passed on a check slip filed by the Court-fee Examiner. The Court-Fee Examiner issued a check slip stating that the suit should have been valued under the proviso to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act as the suit had been filed by the present petitioners against 61 sets of defendants (tenants) and in respect of 62 items of lands in their possession, for the appointment of a receiver in respect of the crops on those lands. The petitioners had alleged that the tenants had entered into a conspiracy to defeat them of their share of the produce on the lands and had resolved to carry them away without giving the varam due to them. They alleged that they were entitled to both the varams as the lands were irruvaram pannai. They paid a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 15, under ...
S.K. Umapathi Vs. A.V. Panchaksharam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ352
ORDERBalakrishnan Ayyar, J.1. Umapathi, the petitioner herein, is the Manager, of the Vijayalakshmi Touring Talkies in Modakur. On 9th November, 1956, he applied to the Collector of Tanjore for the issue of a 'no-objection' certificate under the Madras Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955, in order that he might erect a touring cinema in R.S. No. 540/2 of Modakur village. The rules framed under the Act require that there should be open space not less than 60 feet wide on all sides of a cinema-shed. As R.S. No. 540/2 did not satisfy this requirement, the Collector rejected the application of Umapathi. His appeal to the Board having failed he went up in revision to Government. In G.O. Ms. No. 1639 (Home) dated 14th June, 1957, the Government granted exemption to the Vijayalakshmi Touring Talkies from the operation of the 60 feet rule. Fortified by this exemption, Umapathi applied again on 19th June, 1957, to the Collector of Tanjore for the issue of a ' no-objection ' certificate and on 21st Jun...
Ramayya Pillai Vs. Ratnaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ514
Somasundaram, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiff against an order passed in I.A. No. 4 of 1955 in O.S. No. 75 of 1951. O.S. No. 75 of 1951 was compromised and a razinama was filed into Court. It is alleged in the petition that in drafting the decree a clerical mistake has crept in, in that instead of drafting the decree that the second defendant shall take possession of the movcables with him as receiver it is drafted that the second defendant shall take the moveables in the plaint schedule. No doubt this mistake was discovered very late. The petition to rectify this mistake was filed in the Court, which passed the decree. Without issuing notice to the other side, the order passed is as follows:I do not see how a compromise decree could be amended by a petition. Hence this petition to amend the decree is rejected.2. Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code is wide enough to include a compromise decree. It does not restrict itself to decrees passed other than compromise deerees. Ev...
P.T. Munia Servai Vs. Hanuman Bank Ltd. by Official Liquidator
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad418; (1958)2MLJ96
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. The appellant, P.T. Munia Servai, was indebted to the Hanuman Bank. The Bank was ordered to be wound up in 1947. During the liquidation proceedings Munia Servai deposited the title-deeds of certain of his properties situate in Tanjore District as security for the amount due from, him to the Bank. That was on 13th February, 1948. On Application No. 4085 of 1948, preferred by the Official Liquidators, the Court determined the liability of Munia Servai at Rs. 4,80,596-9-0 and he was further directed to deliver his properties to the Liquidators. Subsequent to that, Munia Servai preferred Application No. 3701 of 1953 to reduce the quantum of his liability to the Bank. By agreement between the Liquidators and the debtor, the liability was reduced, and the Court fixed the reduced liability at Rs. 1,74,238-8-0. By clause (3) of its order dated 21st October, 1953, this Court directed that out of the amount of Rs. Rs. 1,74,238-8-0, a sum of Rs. 25,000 should be paid on o...
Rajalakshmi Ammal Vs. Muthuswami Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad411; (1958)2MLJ146
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by one Rajalakshmi Arnmal the plaintiff in O.S. No. 11 of 1957 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, against the judgment of our learned brother Ganapatia Pillai, J., in G.M.A. No. 116 of 1957, allowing that C.M.A. and setting aside the trial Court's order appointing a Receiver, in respect of leased out properties, in a simple money suit brought by the appellant for recovery of the arrears of the lease amount, amounting to Rs. 5,000' and odd from her lessee, Muthuswami Gounder on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order appointing a Receiver of p operty when that property was not the s bject-matter of the suit.. The learned Judge did not go into the merits of the case as he held the legal position enunciated by him to be conclusive.2. We have perused the records, and heard learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, for the appellant, urged that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that a Recei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »