Chennai Court March 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.
W.V. Kandaswami Chettiar Vs. A.a Arunachala Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ392
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Kandasawamy Chettiar, a landlord, for revising and setting aside the orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority fixing the rent of the premises leased out by him to the respondent, Arunachala Mudaliar, at Rs. 27-8-0 per month. The facts were briefly these:2. The petitioner, Kandaswami Chettiar, let out the suit premises No. 9, Thanda-varoya Mudali Street, Triplicane, Madras, to the respondent, Arunachala Mudaliar and one Kanagasabai Mudaliar for a rent of Rs. 75 per month from 1st May, 1952. Then he filed an eviction petition against them, H.R.C. No. 3115 of 1952, on 31st day of July, 1952, on grounds of default of payment of rent, sub-letting without consent of the landlord wanton waste, etc. Kanagasaba Mudaliar, the more timid of the two tenants, submitted to an order of eviction. But Arunachala Mudaliar, the respondent, remained ex parte and an eviction order was passed against him on 27th October, 1952. He applied ...
C. Abdul Afeez Sahib Vs. Official Receiver, Sub Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ526
Rajagopalan, J.1. The facts lie in a brief compass and are not in dispute. The appellant is the assignee of the decree, dated 31st March, 1942, which entitled the decree-holder to bring the hypotheca to sale. Defendant 1 and defendant 6 were adjudged insolvents ; they were entitled between them to a 2/3 share in the hypotheca ; the mortgage itself was held not to be binding on the Official Receiver in whom their assets vested. Though the appellant asked for the sale of the entire hypotheca, it was conceded that his right, if any, could be enforced only against a third share of the hypotheca, the equity of redemption which has vested in defendants 7 and 8.2. E.P. No. 133 of 1942, the first of the applications filed for the Execution of the decree, was filed on 4th July, 1942, but it was ultimately dismissed on 5th February,1943- The next Execution Petition No. 225 of 1947 was filed on 3rd November, 1947, more than three years after the termination of the proceedings in E.P. No. 133 of 1...
Ramanuja Naicker and ors. Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal Alias Sellathayee an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ512
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. In O.S. No. 29 of 1948, a suit for partition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai, a decree in the nature of a preliminary decree was passed on the 13th April, 1951, which inter alia contained the following clause:III. (a) that the 8th defendant be and hereby is entitled to past maintenance due to her mother, 7th defendant for a period from 12 years prior to suit up to 27th November, 1950, the date of death of 7th defendant, at Rs. 100 per mensem;(b) for the return of the sum of Rs. 500 given by her husband's family to that of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3;(c) to be re-imbursed by plaintiff and defendants I to 3 the sum of Rs. 500 spent by her for the funerals of her mother (7th defendant).2. This clause was followed by another clause which ran as follows:IV. that the payments of the amounts declared under para. Ill supra be a charge on items 1, 13, 14, 20 and 52 to 62 of the plaint A Schedule.3. The 8th defendant filed an executi...
Sundaram and Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR162(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The questions that were referred to this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act were :'1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the method of accounting adopted by the appellant, application of the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act was proper and justified in law and whether the assessment of Rs. 2,45,285 representing commission not received by the appellant was proper and legal; and2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the commission of Rs. 85,287 payable on sales effected in the Indian States could be said to have accrued and arisen in British India and was assessable in British Indian ?'The principle laid down the Supreme Court in K. R. M. T. T. Thiagaraja Chetty v. Commissioner of Income-tax, under virtually similar circumstances, concludes the second question. We answer the second question in the affirmative and against the assessee.The relevant facts with reference to which the first questi...
K.S.M. Guruswami Nadar Vs. Municipal Health Officer, Coimbatore Munici ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ180
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These two Revision Cases relating to prosecutions in respect of two different years of assessment raise an interesting point.2. The facts can be easily followed if we take on hand the sketch marked as Exhibit P-10 in the lower Court, annexed to this judgment for reference.3. Door Nos. 340 and 341 in Raja Street in Coimbatore are involved. Door No. 341 belongs to a Nadar gentlemen and Door No. 340 belongs to a Mohammadan gentleman. The area covered constitutes one place as will be seen from the annexed sketch, comprising these premises. The Nadar gentleman is running a hotel under the name of Bangalore Briyani Hotel. The Municipality wanted him to take out two licences for running this Hotel at the maximum fee of Rs. 200 for Door No. 341 and at the rate of Rs. 150 for Door No. 340. This owner of the Hotel paid Rs. 200 and disclaimed his liability to pay Rs. 150. Therefore, he was prosecuted before the Second Class Bench of Magistrates, Coimbatore, which singularly i...
Sri Krishna Rice Mills, a Firm by Partner M.R.M.K. Chidambaram Pillai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ143
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by Sri Krishna Rice Mills of Manachanallur, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, the defendants in O.S. No. 109 of 1952, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, for revising and setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in C.M.A. No. 19 of 1954, confirming the order of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in I.A. No. 831 of 1953, dismissing the petitioner's application, under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them on 19th June, 1952, and dismissing the C.M.A. The suit had been filed by one Rajagopala Konar, the respondent-plaintiff, against the petitioners, for recovering Rs. 1,250 with subsequent interest and costs, the suit amount being the value of paddy sold to the petitioners. A summons was served on the petitioners regarding the earlier hearing of the suit on 28th March, 1952. It was duly affixed, but the Court held t...
In Re: Chinnathambi Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ594
Subrahmanyam, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, on 3rd January, 1958, in I.A. No. 316 of 1957, in S.C.S. No. 113 of 1957, setting aside the decree which had been passed ex parte in that suit on 18th April, 1957. The defendant-petitioner in the lower Court alleged that she had not been duly served with surnmons in the suit and that she learnt of the suit and the decree for the first time when she was served with notice of the execution on 30th September, 1957. The application to set aside the decree, was made on 14th October, 1957. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner in the lower Court (defendant in the suit) had not been duly served with summons in the suit.2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff (petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition) contends that the learned Subordinate Judge's finding that the defendant in the lower Court had not been duly served with summons is open to review by this Court. Summons whi...
In Re: Veluchami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ175
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an unnecessary reference made by the District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in the following circumstances.2. One Veluchami, an adolescent offender, was tried by the Sub-Magistrate, Tuticorin, for an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, in C.G. No. 2794 of 1957. The accused pleaded guilty. On a reference made to the District Probation Officer to enquire into the antecedents of the accused, the latter reported that the accused had criminal propensities and that institutional treatment would be beneficial to him in view of his tender age and criminal tendencies. The medical evidence shows that the accused is 18 years of age. The Sub-Magistrate, who was not empowered under the Madras Borstal Schools Act, submitted the records to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, for necessary orders under Section 8 of the Act. The Magistrate unwittingly or out of ignorance added Section 349, Criminal Procedure Code, also in submitting the reference.3. The Sub-Divis...
Management of Western India Match Company, Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribuna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ315Mad; (1958)IIMLJ74
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner, representing the management of a match factory at Madras applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 25 July 1957, in I.D. No. 9 of 1957. In view of the peculiar feature of this application that it was filed after the petitioner had failed to obtain leave of the Supreme Court to prefer an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against the award in I.D. No. 9 of 1957, the application came up before a Division Bench even at the initial stage, when a rule nisi was ordered to issue.2. Over 1,600 workmen were employed in the petitioner's factory. In addition to the basic wages each of the workmen was given(1) dearness allowance calculated at two annas in the rupee on the basic wages;(2) a grain allowance of Rs. 1-9-0 in each; and(3) a store purchase quota.The last enabled a workman to purchase at the stores the factory maintained essential and othe...
In Re: Nachimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad452; 1958CriLJ1197
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The petitioner has exhausted all his. remedies available to him under the law. His present application is that the sentences that been already passed in four different cases should all be made to run concurrently. His petition in effect is for a review of the orders that have been already passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.It is pointed out that there is no provision of law for such a review being entertained in orders passed under the Criminal Procedure Code. If this were a matter of mere clerical error obviously some relief can be given in regard to the sentence.; But this is not so. It is therefore not possible to entertain such an application. The application is devoid of merits and it is therefore dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »