Chennai Court February 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 2 of about 21 results (0.019 seconds)Balkrishna Koundar Vs. Amirthavalli Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad526; (1959)2MLJ186
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. Two points arise in this civil revision petition for consideration. The first is whether the respondent, who happens to be the appellant in the lower court, has proved herself to be still a wife or a widow. The question of her being a wife or a widow will turn upon the fact as to whether there is satisfactory proof of the death of her husband. It is common ground that the husband has not been heard of for the last four or five years.Under Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act the burden is on the person, who asserts that the man is dead or alive to prove that he is dead or alive as required by the Sections, in this case on the evidence it is difficult to hold that the respondent has become a widow. The evidence is not satisfactory on that aspect of the case. There is no proof that the husband has not been heard of for seven years by those, who would have naturally heard of him if he were alive. It has, therefore, to be held that the respondent has not...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Narasimhan Vs. M.G. Natesa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad514
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Madurai II, setting aside the election of the appellant to the seat for the single member Parliamentary constituency of Krishnagiri on a election petition filed by the respondent (E. P. No. 349 of 1957). For the said seat there were five candidates out of whom one withdrew. The appellant secured the largest number of votes and on 8-3-1957 he was declared as the returned candidate.The respondent. M. G. Natesan Chettiar, as elector for the Krishnagiri Assembly constituency which is one of the constituencies comprised in the Krishnagiri Parliamentary constituency filed an election petition out of which this anneal arises praying that the election of the appellant be declared void & one G. D. Naidu who had secured the largest number of votes after the appellant be declared duly elected. The election of the appellant was sought to be set aside on several grounds which included charges of corrupt practices committed by the appe...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.S.M. Mohammed Abdul Samad and ors. Vs. P.M.S.C. Madarsa Rowther an ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad440
Subrahmanyam, J.1.The plaintiffs whose suit failed in the courts below prefer this second appeal. The plaintiffs and the defendants were doing business in partnership from 7-2-1944 to 21-1-1949. The main business transacted by the partnership was procurement and distribution of paddy under the Control Orders which were in force during the major part of that period. The partnership was dissolved in 1949 and accounts of the dissolved partnership were taken. The plaintiffs received theirshare of the capital and profits and retired from the partnership. The defendants are continuing the business. The firm was never registered.2. During the period of the partnership, the Government directed the firm to pay a sum of Rs. S323-6-8 as surcharge on the stocks of paddy held by the partnership. The money was paid. Subsequently, businessmen in the position of the plaintiffs and defendants complained to the Government challenging the legality of the Government's order levying a surcharge. As a resul...
Tag this Judgment!P.Sv.Rm. Ramanatha Aiyar Vs. M. Pappu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad558
1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant-petitioner in E. A. No. 84 of 1956 in O. S. No. 98 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. That was an application made by the defendant in the suit for restitution Under Section 144, C. P. C.2. The facts of the case are: One Muthuswami Reddiar filed O. S. No. 98 of 1949 against the present appellant in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, for recovery of a largo sum of money and obtained a decree for about Rs. 10,000, odd and Rs. 1400 odd for costs against the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal against that decree to this court in A. S. No. 121 of 1951. Pending appeal, he applied for stay of execution and this court ordered the entire decree amount to be deposited into court as a condition of the stay, and further ordered that the decree amount could be withdrawn by the decree-holder on his furnishing security of immoveable property. In pursuance of the order of this court, the judgment debt...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.V.R.M. Ramanatha Ayyar Vs. M. Pappu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ184
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant petitioner in E.A. No. 84 of 1956 in O.S. No. 98 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. That was an application made by the defendant in the suit for restitution under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts of the case are : One Muthuswami Reddiar filed O.S. No. 98 of 1949 against the present appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli for recovery of a large sum of money and obtained a decree for about Rs. 10,000 odd and Rs. 1,400 for costs against the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal against that decree to this Court in A.S. No. 121 of 1951. Pending appeal, he applied for stay of execution and this Court ordered the entire decree amount to be deposited into Court as a condition of the stay, and further ordered that the decree amount could be withdrawn by the decree-holder on his furnishing security of immoveable property. In pursuance of the order of this...
Tag this Judgment!C. Cunniah and Co. by Partners M. Anjaneyulu and ors. Vs. Balraj and C ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1961Mad111
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This appeal against the judgment and decree-of Ramaswami J. in C.S. No. 127 of 1953 arises out of a suit instituted by the appellants as plaintiffs for the reliefs of injunction, damages and accounts against the respondents. The appellants, Messrs, C. Cunniah and Co., are a firm of merchants carrying on business in Madras City in pictures, picture frames etc. In 1932, according to the case in the plaint, one Sri T. M. Subramaniam drew a picture, M. O. 1 of Lord Balasubramanya and gave it the title of Mayurapriya.On 13-7-1938, he assigned the copyright in this picture to the appellant firm. From 1940 onwards, the appellant firm were making and selling printed copies of this picture to the public. There was, however, a temporary stoppage of the sale between 1946 and 1950 owing to scarcity of printing materials due to war conditions. However, the printing and sale were resumed from 1950 onwards. The appellant firm got this picture registered under the Trade Marks Ac...
Tag this Judgment!C. Cunniah and Co., by Partners M. Anjaneyalu and ors. Vs. Balraj and ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ53
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This appeal against the judgment and decree of Ramaswami, J., in C.S. No. 127 of 1953 arises out of a suit instituted by the appellants as plaintiffs for the reliefs of injunction, damages and accounts against the respondents. The appellants, Messrs. C. Cunniah and Co., are a firm of merchants carrying on business in Madras City in pictures, picture frames, etc. In 1932, according to the case in the plaint, one Sri T.M. Subramaniam drew a picture, M.O. 1 of Lord Balasubramanya and gave it the title of Mayura Priya. On 13th July, 1938, he assigned the copyright in this picture to the appellant firm. From 1940 onwards, the appellant-firm were making and selling printed copies of this picture to the public. There was, however, a temporary stoppage of the sale between 1946 and 1950 owing to scarcity of printing materials due to war conditions. However, the printing and sale were resumed from 1950 onwards. The appellant-firm got this picture registered under the Trade...
Tag this Judgment!S. Abdul Rasheed Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and an ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad386; (1959)1MLJ287
1. The petitioner is the owner of the lorry MSY 4720. On the ground that the lorry had been carrying loads in excess of the permitted weight on different dates between September 1956 and January 1958, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Madras, suspended the permit for the lorry for a period of three months. Against that order the petitioner appealed to the State Transport Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was presented beyond time. The present petition has been filed for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.2. Rule 147 (1) of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act so far as it is here relevant runs as follows :"An appeal under Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act shall, lie to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the receipt of the order appealed against."Admittedly the order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Rayalseema Constructions by Managing Partner C. Venugopal Vs. Deputy C ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad382; (1959)2MLJ97; [1959]10STC345(Mad)
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The questions for determination in all these three writ petitions are the same, and, we shall therefore deal with them together.2. The relevant facts are these: The Rayalseema Constructions, who is the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 91 and 142 of 1957, is a firm of construction engineers. For the year 1951-52 the firm was assessed under the Madras General Sales-tax Act, 1939, on a gross turnover of Rs. 2,23,174-10-0, as on 'works contracts'. The order of assessment was made on 25-3-1953, and, it was then determined that a sum of Rs. 2,440-15-7 was payable by the firm. Deducting the payments made by the firm a balance of Rs. 775-15-7 remains due in respect of this assessment. For the year 1952-53, the gross turnover of the firm was computed to be Rs. 2,54,666-13-9 and the assessment was made in a sum of Rs. 2,785-6-9. Deducting the various payments made by the firm a sum of Rs. 1,725-6-9 remains due in respect of this assessment.3. The Department demanded payment of the...
Tag this Judgment!D. Namasivaya Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras, Through the R ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad548
Balakishna Ayyar, J.1. The questions for determination in all these writ petitions are the same and so we shall deal with them together.2. The relevant facts are these: Investigations carried out by the Geological Survey of India revealed that large deposits of brown coal or lignite lay in and around Cuddalore and Vridhachlam taluks in South Arcot District. The Government decided to mine this coal and for that purpose it was necessary for them to get control over the lignite bearing areas. Meantime speculators attempted to buy up lands in the area at low prices in the expectation that prices would rise by the time Government decided to acquire the lands; they hoped that they would be able to sell the lands to the Government at a large profit. On 6-10-1948 the Government issued a press note which said inter alia:'To prevent such speculative dealings, the Government propose to undertake legislation reserving to themselves the power to compel any person who has purchased land on or after ...
Tag this Judgment!