Chennai Court May 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.011 seconds)Thanappa Goundar and ors. Vs. Sabapathy Goundar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ538
ORDER1. This is an application to quash the proceedings now pending before-the Executive First Class Magistrate, Tindivanam, in M.C. No. 11 of 1959 on his file underSection 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent filed an application before the Executive First Class Magistrate in April, 1959, alleging that he (the respondent) was in exclusive management of the affairs of a temple known as Mariamman Koil in Nallur village as its trustee and Dharmakartha, that he had to perform certain festivals in the temple, that the petitioners herein were attempting by force to lock the doors of the temple and prevent the respondent herein from performing the festivals and praying that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bramadesam, be directed to enquire and report regarding the facts and that an order be passed directing the petitioners not to interfere with the respondent managing the temple, and its properties and affairs. On the basis of that petition, the learned Executive First Class Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatalakshmammal Vs. Balakrishnachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad270
(1) This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem, in A. S. No. 133 of 1953, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Krishnagiri in O. S. No. 248 of 1950.(2) One Swarnambal, the deceased first plaintiff, whose daughters are the second plaintiff and defendants 6 and 7, filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for redemption on the footing that she had inherited the properties of her husband one Pappachari who died in the year 1928. Pappachari had a son by name Moogi Puttuswami who died 1 1/2 years before the date of this suit leaving a widow and a minor daughter, defendants 3 and 4 respectively. Moogi Puttuswami was born deaf mute and this is the finding under issue 2 which is not challenged. The suit properties were usufructuarily mortgaged by the first plaintiff in favour of the first defendant on 30-3-1943. While so, defendants 3 and 4 claiming rights in the properties as the heirs ...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanamuthu Udayar and anr. Vs. Anthoni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad430
(1) This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in A. S. No. 201 of 1950, reversing the well-considered judgment of the learned District Munsif of Ariyalur in O. S. No. 434 of 1946.(2) The short facts are: The plaintiffs who are Christian Udayars have purchased the suit property for Rs.500/- under Ex. A-1 dated 11-11-1942 from the deceased Maria Arogyam and Maria Arogyam's grandson and Sowri Ammal. The case for the plaintiffs is that Maria Arogyam is the lawfully wedded wife of Maria Susai Udayar, that Maria Susai Udayar's divided brother is the first defendant and that Maria Susai Udayar died in or about 1939 surviving him his widow Maria Arogyam, his daughter Sowri Ammal and his so Antoniswami. By 11-11-1942 Antoniswami and his wife had died leaving behind them their son Hirudayaswami.In the sale deed Ex. A-1 this Hirudayaswami is represented by Maria Arogyam. Subsequently Hirudayaswami also died. The plaintiff's ...
Tag this Judgment!South Madras Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd. Vs. T.L. Jagannatha Aiy ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad374; (1959)2MLJ446
(1) These are two appeals filed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in A. S. No. 45 of 1957 reversing the decision of the learned District Munsif of Manamadurai in O. S. No. 210 of 1955. The learned District Munsif had held that the suit did not lie in a civil court and that the proper forum was the District Magistrate and therefore dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the District Munsiff and held that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The two defendants who are aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge have preferred these two appeals.(2) As a matter of fact it has not been made clear as to what subsisting interest the first defendant has in the suit in so far as it has been made clear that the first defendant company was taken over by the State Government and the State Government is now managing the entire question of laying the suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Bank (Private) Ltd., Alandur Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1961Mad8; [1960]30CompCas146(Mad)
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the notice dated 18-3-1957, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Madras, in DBO (M) No: L. I. 485/Ns-S. 2(L)-57, and quashing the same.2. The Sajjan Bank (Private) Ltd, which is carrying on business at Alandur, originated from Sajjan and Co. Ltd, which was incorporated in November 1944 with the main object of carrying on money-lending business. In May 1946, the company was converted into a banking company and in November of that year its name was changed into Sajjan Bank (Private). Ltd. All its shares are held by its three directors who are said to be closely related. The Banking Companies Act, 1949, referred to hereafter as the Act, came into force on 16-3-1949.Section 22 of the Act provided amongst other things that every banking company in existence at the commencement of this Act should before the expiry of six months from...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. SA. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad85
Rajamannar, C.J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Madurai, in Election Petition No. 86 of 1957 filed in the following circumstances. In the recent general elections to the Madras State Assembly four candidates went to the polls to contest the seat for the Karaikudi Constituency in the Ramanathapuram district. There were others who had filed their nomination papers but they withdrew before the due date. Polling took place on 1-3-1957. The four candidates obtained votes as under:1. Sri M. A. Muthiah Chettiar 24,2232. Sri Sa. Ganesan 23,3653. Sri R. M. Subbiah 2,3484. Sri U.P.L. Venkatachalam Chettiar 1,171Muthiah Chettiar having secured the largest number of votes was declared duly elected on 5-3-1957. Sa Ganesan filed an election petition before the Election Commission on 15-4-1957 and it was referred to the Election Tribunal at Madurai for trial. Muthiah Chettiar was the sole respondent and the prayer was for an order declaring the election of the return...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Oomayan
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ91
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a reference under Sections 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused is charged Tinder Section 201 read with Section 302 I.PC. The Magistrate has committed the accused to sessions. In paragraph 2 of his letter of reference the Magistrate states:Oomayan alias Baluswami accused in this case is completely deaf and dumb and unable to understand the proceedings. Therefore, Sri Williams, the Headmaster, Municipal Deaf and Dumb School, Karaikudi, was engaged and the proceedings of the court were explained to the accused by signs as re- quired Under Section 36l Crl. P. C. and the accused understood the proceedings.To begin with, Section 361 cannot apply to this case, because under that Section, whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, it should be interpreted to him in open court in a language understood by him.A deaf and dumb man can understand by signs and gestures. Signs and gestures do not form a language, though lo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Oomayan Alias Baluchamy
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ83
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a reference under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused is charged under Section 201 read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate has committed the accused to Sessions. In paragraph 2 of his letter of reference the Magistrate states:Oomayan alias Baluchamy accused in this case is completely deaf and dumb and unable to understand the proceedings. Therefore, Sri Williams, the Headmaster, Municipal Deaf and Dumb School, Karaikudi, was engaged and the proceedings of the Court were explained to the accused by signs as required under Section 361, Criminal Procedure Code and the accused understood the proceedings.2. To begin with, Section 361 cannot apply to this case, because under that section whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, it should be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him. A deaf and dumb man can understand by signs and gestures. Signs and gestures do no...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Subhan Sahib and Sons Vs. State of Madras by Secretary, Home Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ387
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in Writ Petition No. 275 of 1957. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellants before us, Abdul Subhan Sahib & Sons, for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the State of Madras, exempting premises No. 6, Varasiddhi Vinayakar Koil Street, Periamet, Madras, from the operation of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949.2. The appellants are lessees of the property, and it is stated in their affidavit that they have been in occupation of the property for nearly 40 years. The previous owner of the property was one C. Haji Abdul Karim Sahib. In 1952 he filed a petition before the Rent Controller to evict the present appellants from the premises. This proceeding ended in a compromise, as a result of which the appellants were allowed to continue in possession of the premises on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 170 per mensem. In November, 1954, Abdul Wahid, the se...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Bank by Director Kevalchand Lalwani Vs. Reserve Bank of India b ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ455
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the notice dated 18th March, 1957, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Madras, in DBO (M) No. L.I. 485/Ns. S-2(L)-57 and quashing the same.2. The Sajjan Bank (Private) Ltd., which is carrying on business at Alandur, originated from Sajjan & Co., Ltd., which was incorporated in November, 1944, with the main object of carrying on money-lending business. In May, 1946, the Company was converted into a banking company and in November of that year its name was changed into Sajjan Bank (Private) Ltd. All its shares are held by its three directors who are said to be closely related. The Banking Companies Act, 1949, inferred to hereafter as the Act, came into force on 16th March, 1949. Section 22 of the Act provided amongst other things that every banking company in existence at the commencement of this Act should before the expiry of...
Tag this Judgment!