Chennai Court August 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 31 results (0.014 seconds)Nambikkai Mari Ammal Vs. A. Rathna Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ337
S. Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal arises from an order of remand made by the District Judge of West Tanjore, in A.S. No. 52 of 1954. The plaintiff's father took on lease on 26th June, 1928 for a period of three years certain agricultural lands in the village of Malayappanallur, Tanjore District, from the predecessor-in-title of the defendant. It was the plaintiff's case that subsequent to the expiry of the lease his father, and after the latter's death, the plaintiff continued in possession of the lands paying rent. On these allegations a suit was filed by the plaintiff (tenant) under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act before the Deputy Collector Kumbakonam, for the issue of a patta in respect of the lands granted to him on lease on the ground that he had acquired a permanent right of occupancy in them by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. According to the plaintiff, Malayappanallur was an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Act. The defendant-landholder contest...
Tag this Judgment!K.R.S. Narayana Iyengar and ors. Vs. T.A. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad338
(1). This is an application preferred under the new Ss. 397 and 398 of the Indian companies Act, 1956 corresponding to S. 210 of the English companies Act of 1948. The case law both under the English and Indian Sections of the Companies Act is very sparse.(2) Sri Rangaraja Talkies (Private) Limited has been incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and is now governed by the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is at Ammamandapam Road, Srirangam. It owns a theatre known as Sri Rangaraja Talkies. It is stated to be screening second class pictures, for profit. Out of 74 shares of Rs. 500/- each, petitioners 1 to 4 own 8 shares and the 5th petitioner has subsequent to the filing of this petition sold his 2 shares to the first respondent. Respondent 1 to 4 own 62 shares.(3) The first respondent was elected as Director on or about 31-3-1952 and as Managing Director on 6-8-1952. Respondents 2 and 3 were elected as Directors of the Company on 7-12-1952.(4) By 1954 the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppanna Gounder and ors. Vs. Peruma Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad154
(1) The appeals arise out of the decree in O. S. No. 144 of 1952 on the file of the Sub court, Coimbatore, Defendants 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 are the appellants in the former appeal, while defendants 2 and 8 are the appellants in the latter. The suit was laid for a declaration of title of the plaintiffs respondents 1 and 2 to the suit properties, and for recovery of possession, with past and future mesne profits.(2) One Pongoliappa Gounden, who owned the suit properties, died in the year 1906, leaving him surviving his mother, Marakkal, and his sister, Kaliakkal. On his death, his mother succeeded to his properties. In August 1918, Marakkal entered into an arrangement with her husband's brothers, Kalianna Goundan and Peria Goundan, who were then the presumptive reversioners to the estate of Pongaliappa. The arrangement is evidenced by Exs. A. 2, A. 3, and A. 4 Ex. A. 2 dated 2-5-1918 purports to be a deed of "conveyance known as release deed" executed by Marakkal in favour of the reversio...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S. Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ363; (1960)1MLJ339
Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant was tried by the Special Judge, Madras for offences under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(i)(d) read with Section 5(a) of Act II of 1947 and convicted. He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 300/-2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows:The appellant was a Clerk employed in the Records Section of the Chief Engineer's Office, Southern Railway. P.W. 2, Kulasekharan, a young man of about 22 years is said to have been trying for a job. Having heard that there was recruitment for the the post of Khalasi in the General Mechanical Department of the Southern Railway, he is said to have gone to that office for the purpose of getting the necessary information and applying for the post. P.W. 2 is a stranger to the accused. But when he went to the office he is said to have been seen by the accused in the office. The accused came out immediately on seeing P.W. 2 and asked him what he wanted. P.W. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Esakki thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ463
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This is a Revision Petition by the five accused in a criminal case, who were originally convicted by the learned District Magistrate of Tirunelveli under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to several periods of imprisonment. This matter was taken up in appeal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli, who considered the facts of evidence in his appellate judgment and confirmed the convictions and sentences.2. At the outset itself, when these proceedings in revision were argued, the limits of the propriety of interference in criminal revision by the High Court in a case of this kind, where there are concurrent findings of fact by two Courts below, were canvassed as I felt that it was essential that this should be clarified. The matter has now been argued at some length by learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, and also the learned Public Prosecutor, with reference to the available authorities, both of th...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Murtasa Ali Khan Vs. Stressed Concrete Constructions Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad254; [1961]31CompCas84(Mad)
(1) This is a petition for winding up by court of the respondent-company, the Stressed Concrete Constructions Private Ltd.(2) The respondent-company was formed to take over the assets, rights and goodwill of the business known as Rayalaseema Constructions. The petitioner is stated to have advanced a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent-company by way of loan on 14-8-1953 carrying interest at six percent per annum. This has been acknowledged in writing by the Director incharge of the Respondent-company on 30-8-1955, showing the amount due to the petitioner as amounting to Rs. 13,807-12-0 as on 30-6-1955. The balance-sheets of the respondent-company for the years ending with 30th June 1954 to 1957 contain specific admissions of the amounts due and payable to the petitioner. On 13-11-1956 when the petitioner had sent a registered communication to the Managing Director of the respondent-company threatening legal action in default of payment, the Managing director by his letter dated 15-12-1...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ganapathy Goundar Vs. the State of Madras, Salem and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad194
(1) These petitions are by the same petitioner and seek the quashing of the orders of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, by the issue of a writ of certiorari in four appeals preferred by him to it, namely, A. S. Nos. 334 to 337 of 1956. These four appeals were dismissed by a common order and it is therefore not necessary to deal with each of the petitions separately. The petitioner is the landholder of Kokkarayanpettai zamin estate in Salem Dt. and he made four applications Nos. 17 of 1951, 24 of 1951, 25 of 1951 & 29 of 1951 to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukottai for the issue of ryotwari patta to him for certain items of lands in the four hamlets of the estate claiming them as his private land.These applications were dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer two on 28-2-1952 and the other two on 28-4-1952, for the reason that the lands for which patta had been applied had stood registered in the name of his son and that by reason of this fact the petitioner was not...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ganapathy Goundar Vs. the State of Madras by Collector of Salem and ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ322
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These petitions are by the same petitioner and seek the quashing of the orders of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, by the issue of a writ of certiorari in four appeals preferred by him to it, namely, A.S. Nos. 334 to 337 of 1956. These four appeals were dismissed by a common order and it is therefore not necessary to deal with each of the petitions separately. The petitioner is the landholder of Kokkarayanpettai zamin estate in Salem district, and he made four applications Nos. 17 of 1951, 24 of 1951, 25 of 1951 and 29 of 1951 to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukottah, for the issue of ryotwari patta to him for certain items of lands in the four hamlets of the estate claiming them as his private land. These applications were dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer two on 28th February, 1952 and the other two on 28th April, 1952, for the reason that the lands for which patta had been applied had stood registered in the name of his son a...
Tag this Judgment!V. Janakamma Vs. V.G. Rangaraj
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ362
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against the appellate order of the Court of Small Causes at Madras in H.R.A. No. 78 of 1957. That appeal was preferred against I.A. No. 1120 of 1956 in H.R.C. No. 4376 of 1956. The petitioner before me, the landlady of the premises, occupied by the respondent before me, as a tenant, applied to the Rent Controller for eviction on the ground of arrears in payment of rent. After counter-statement was filed in the procedings the Rent Controller acting under the Proviso to Section 7, Clause (2) of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, directed the tenant to pay all arrears of rent up to date. After this order had been made the proceeding came on for hearing on 31st December, 1956. That day the following order was passed by the Rent Controller:Parties by counsel. Arrears not paid as directed. Respondent is absent when called thrice. Proceedings are stopped and eviction is ordered under Section 7-A(4) of the Madras Rent Con...
Tag this Judgment!Muniammal and anr. Vs. Pagadala Guruvayya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad195
(1) An interesting point arises for decision in this matter whether the petitioners (decree-holders) in the court below, who are the appellants here, were entitled to ask the lower court to appoint a Receiver in respect of properties, which were hypotheca covered by a simple mortgage, in pending sale proceedings. It is not necessary to traverse all the facts at length. It is sufficient to note that the decree-holders are unable to bring the interest of all the judgment debtors in the properties to sale, for, with respect to some of them, the matter is still sub judice in pending litigation, and with respect to some alone has a final adjudication of liability been made.In any event, the question whether in the case of simple mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to anything more than the right to sell the property even if the interest be in arrears, is an interesting one, which came up before the Allahabad High Court for decision in Bireshwar Banerji v. Sudhansu Shekhar Singh, AIR 1947 Al...
Tag this Judgment!