Chennai Court August 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.
The New Central Hall, a Firm of Two Partners, Ismail Ibrahim Sully and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad153; (1959)1MLJ28
1.This is an appeal by the New Central Hall, a firm consisting of two partners, Ismail Ibrahim Sully and Moose Ibrahira Sully, plaintiffs in O. S. No. 40 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, against the dismissal of the suit, though without costs.The suit has been filed by them against the United Commercial Bank Ltd., Madurai, for recovering damages of Rs. 50,000, with interest at 6 per cent, per annum, from the date of plaint and costs, for dishonouring 11 cheques of theirs issued' on the defendant Bank in the first week of November 1948, though the defendant Bank had sufficient funds of theirs in its hands and could have easily paid all the 11 cheques.The indignant plaintiffs withdrew their entire-bank balance from this bank on 10th November 1951 and closed their accounts despite the bank's regret and offer to explain the position to the payees of the cheques.2. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the fact of dishonouring the cheques by the Bank, by endorsing on ...
V. Somasundaram Vs. Nalini Somasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad432
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In 1938 Somasundaram, the petitioner before me, married the respondent Nalini, By 1953 the relationship between the two got very strained and in that year Nalini filed O. P. No. 181 of 1953 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner Under Section 5 of Madras Act VI of 1949. On 28-11-1953 a decree was passed dissolving the marriage between the parties. Among other things, the court also directed that Somasundaram should pay Nalini Rs. 600 per month for her maintenance, the payment to continue so long as she remained unmarried In November 1956 Somasundaram filed O. S. No. 2090 of 1956 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for setting aside that portion of the decree in O. P. No. 181 of 1953, which directed that he should pay Nalini Es. 600 per month. That relief was sought for on the ground that Nalini had given birth to a child in November 1953, that Somasundaram could have had no access to her at ...
Patel Bros. Vs. Vadilal Kashidas Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad227; (1959)1MLJ106
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a revision petition filed at the instance of the plaintiffs in S. C. S. No. 7610 of 1956, on the file of the Small Cause Court at Madras. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 281/4/0 as damages for breach of contract for nondelivery of goods contracted to he sold by the defendants. The plaintiff, a firm carrying on business at Madras entered into a contract for the purchase of one bale of cotton cloth with the defendants.The defendant is a limited liability company carrying on business at Bombay. According to the plaintiffs delivery was to be made at Madras. The defendants contested the claim and one of the objections was that the Madras court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit Beyond filing the contract Ex. P. 1, Ex. P. 2 being a translation of a portion of Ex. P. 1, which is in Hindi, no other evidence was let in, in the case.The learned Judge held that a part of the cause of action arose at Madras and that therefore the su...
Karuppu Goundan and ors. Vs. Sellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad279; (1959)1MLJ173
1. The only question in this appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., in A. S. No. 126 of 1949 is whether an alienation by a Hindu widow is binding on the reversioners. The properties in suit belonged to one Kali Goundan who died in 1918 leaving him surviving his widow Varadammal and his two daughters who are the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises. Varadammal sold certain properties belonging to Kali Goundan and which had devolved on her to her father Palani Goundan under Ex. B-l dated 25-3-1921 for a sum of Rs. 2000. The plaintiffs attacked the alienation on the ground that it was not supported by necessity. The consideration of Rs. 2000 was made up of the following items : (1) Rs. 922-10-8 due for principal and interest in respect of a mortgage executed in favour of one Sellappa Goundan by Varadammal on 2-7-1919 for Rs. 800: (2) Rs. 100 being the balance due in respect of the mortgage executed by Kali Goundan himself in favour or one Veerayi, (3) Rs. 100 be...
G. Hari Prasad Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad406; (1958)2MLJ552
1. The petitioner, whose application under Article 226 of the Constitution (W.P. No. 1181 of 1956) was dismissed, applied for a certified copy of the judgment to prefer an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The judgment in that case was delivered on 11-3-1958, and the petitioner's application for a copy, C. D. 1813 of 1.958, was preferred on 14-3-1958. The requisite stamp papers were called for by the office on 30-6-1958 by a notice affixed to the notice board of the office. That notice directed that the copy stamps called for should be furnished within three days. The petitioner did not furnish those copy stamps and so C. P. 1813 of 1958 was struck off on 4-7-1958. The present application, C. M. P. No. 4187 of 1958, was presented as a verified petition. The relief asked for was to restore C. D. 1813 of 1958 to file and to direct that a certified copy of the judgment in W. P. No. 1181 of 1956 be furnished to the petitioner.2. I ordered notice of this application to the Addit...
Manickam Pillai and anr. Vs. Sandanam Muthirian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ536
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by Manickam Pillai and Thandavaroya Pillai, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 166 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, for revising and setting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing an additional Court-fee of Rs. 1,977 t0 be paid on their plaint for recovery of possession of the lands held by the 85 defendants in 22 holdings, under them, and for past mesne profits of Rs. 2,250. The plaintiffs paid a Court-fee of Rs. 168-12-0 for the relief of mesne profits, and there was no dispute by the Court fee examiner regarding this. They paid a Court-fee of only Rs. 213 for the relief for recovery of possession, under Section 7 read with Section 7 (2)(b) of the Court-fees Act of 1955. According to them, they had got all the defendants dispossessed from the 22 holdings in which all the survey numbers sought to be recovered possession of were comprised. On the importunities of the 85 defendants, they were per...
Syed Ahmed Mohideen Razvi Vs. Thakirunnissa Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1958
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ252
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ramaswami Gounder, J., in A.S. No. 619 of 1952. It arises out of a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant for recovery of possession of the suit properties together with mesne profits. The plaintiff is the widow of one Syed Jaffar Mohideen, the brother of the defendant. It is common ground that the suit property formed part of an inam in Jagir Gurivinayanapalli which was attached to the office of the Kazi of Baramahal. Though the original grant is not available, sufficient information is to be found in the certified extract from the Inam Register (Exhibit A-37 - Exhibit B-1). The entries in the Inam Register show that the inam comprised about 765 acres and was granted 'for performing the duties of Kazi in the Baramahal division'. It was confirmed tax-free for the service of the Kazi of Baramahal. In 1810 one Syed Abdul Razack appears to have been appointed as the Kazi of Baramahal and all inams and other emol...
Sachindranath Chatterjee Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad73; 1959CriLJ209; (1958)2MLJ534
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an application for excusing delay in depositing the initial charges for printing records in S.C.S.L.P. Crl. Nos. 557 to 500 of 1957against Crl. R. C. No. 59 of 1937 and in which leave has been granted by the Supremo Court.2. Under Rule 17 of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules it is provided that the preceding orders of the Rules of the Supreme Court with reference to civil appeals with the necessary, modifications and adaptations are to apply to criminal appeals also. Order XII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that when an appellant having obtained a certificate fails to furnish the security or make the deposit as required under Order XLV Rule 7 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code the High Court may cancel the certificate or make such further or other order us the justice of the case may require.The time contemplated under Order XLV Rule 7 (1) C. P. C. within which the deposit is required to be made under Rule 7 (1) (b) is 90 days or such further pe...
A.V.R.A. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad56; [1960]38ITR29(Mad)
1. Six questions were referred for the determination of this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. It may not be necessary to set out over again the relevant facts to answer some at least of the questions.2. The fifth of the questions ran:Whether the dividend of Rs. 7,500 received in the ' previous year' for 1945-46 assessment from the Beverley Estates, Ltd., Madras, is income exempt under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-Tax Act?The answer to this question is concluded by the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court inMrs. Bacha F. Gizdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax . The question is answered in thenegative and against the assessee.3. The sixth question ran:Whether the assessment in the assessment year 1947-48 of the gross income from the investment of shares in Avra, Ltd., before deduction of the Ceylon income-tax thereon, is valid and proper?A similar question with reference to the provisions of the Ceylon Income-Tax Ordinance was considered by us in Ramaswami Nai...
Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt by Agent R. Seshaiya Sastrigal Vs. A. Alagu Ambal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ173
1. These revision petitions arise out of orders passed by the District Munsif of Manamadurai in I.A. Nos. 538 to 541 of 1956 granting stay of suits, O.S. Nos. 63, 64, 67 and 68 of 1955 under the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act XXIV of 1949. The plaintiff is the petitioner in these petitions. He filed the abovementioned four suits aginst the respective defendants for recovery of possession of the properties together with mesne profits. The plaintiff stated that the lands were situate in the inam village of Pulavacheri in iruvaram as sarvamanyam to the plaintiff. That inam was recognised and confirmed by the British Government. According to the plaintiff half of the lands in the village have been set apart and treated as pannai private lands and that in July, 1953, the defendants got an oral lease of the lands set out in the schedule to the various plaints from the plaintiff's Peshkar for cultivation for fasli 1363. But after getting into possession they began to deny the title o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »