Chennai Court July 1962 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.
Janab Abdul Khader Vs. HussaIn Ali and Sons by Partner Mir Mahamood Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ446
Jagadisan, J.1. The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether a wholesale merchant carrying on business in a premises belonging to him or to which he is entitled under the Madras Buldings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, can evict his tenant in another premises either belonging to him or to which he is entitled under the Act, to enable him to carry on a retail business in respect of the very commodity dealt with by him as a whole-sale dealer. The answer to this question depends upon the proper construction of Section 7(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. Though this Act has now been replaced by another recent enactment, it is common ground that this case is governed by the old Act of 1949. The petitioner in this Revision Petition who is the tenant has been evicted by order of the House Rent Controller in H.R.C. No. 1353 of 1959 and his order has been confirmed by the Court of Small Causes at Madras in H.R.A. No. 134 of 1961. Hence ...
In Re: M.R. Radha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ520
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner M.R. Radha has been convicted under Section 7(1) of the Madras Dramatic Performance Act, 1954 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to simple imprisonment for three weeks by the learned Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras.2. The prosecution case is that on 19th July, 1959, between 7 and 10 p.m. at Theagaraja College, Open Air Theatre, Washermanpet, Madras, the petitioner staged the drama Kathal Bali, which is substantially the same as the drama Thooku Medai, the performance of which has been prohibited by the Government in G.O. No. 1193, dated 25th April, 1959. But before staging the drama, the script of the drama was submitted to the Commissioner of Police and a licence was obtained to stage the drama on the basis of the script so furnished. The learned advocate for the petitioner urged that the finding of the Second Presidency Magistrate that both the performances Thooku Medai and Kathal Bali ' are substantially similar ' is n...
Peria Mari Goundan Vs. P.K. Ramaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ541
Jagadisan, J.1. The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition centres on the proper interpretation of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. The petition was heard by our learned brother, Kunhamed Kutti, J., in the first instance who has referred the matter to a Division Bench in the view that there is a conflict of judicial pronouncements in the two decisions, the first in Muthukumara Padayachi v. Sambandam Pillai : (1960)1MLJ20 , and the next in the unreported decision in C.R.P. No. 928 of 1960.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are quite simple. The petitioner is a tenant holding agricultural lands of an extent of 19.68 acres comprised in S. Nos. 46, 47, 55, 56 and 57 of Puliyampatti village, Pollachi taluk under the respondent, who is admittedly the owner. The respondent purchased the properties from one Palaniappa Chettiar. The petitioner was a tenant even under the vendor of the respondent. He has been holding these lands on lease all these...
Kullammal Vs. Padmavathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad188; (1962)IILLJ467Mad
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Rajagopalan J. allowing an appeal filed at the instance of an employer from an order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, directing the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 2100 to the mother of the deceased employee, Ranganathan. The facts which have led up to the appeal are these. Caltex Co., Ltd., Madras are importers of oil from outside India. The imported oil which comes in sealed barrels is taken delivery of at the quay in Madras Harbour and delivered to the company at their warehouse at Rayapuram by contractors. The respondent is one such contractor. On 24th March 1958, the respondent's four-wheeled cart drawn by bullocks was loaded with oil barrels at the Harbour was proceeding from that place to the warehouse at Rayapuram. Chinnathambi, A. W. 1, was drawing the cart. Ranganathan, the deceased son of the appellant, who was to be in the rear was pushing the cart from behind when it was negotiating t...
M.R. Raju Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ167
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee firm, carrying on business in jiggery, was constituted under a deed of partnership dated 27th January, 1955. There were two partners, M.R. Raju Chettiar, who provided the capital, and S. Raju Chettiar, the working partner. The document set out that the partnership had been carrying on business from the 13th September, 1953, though it contained no reference to any instrument governing the partnership.' For the asessment year 1955-56, the relevant account year for which ended on the 31st March, 1955, an application was made under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act for the registration of the firm. The document of partnership was enclosed thereto. It is not in dispute that this document specified the shares of the partners in the profits of the firm. It is not also in dispute that the application conformed to the requirements of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Income-tax Officer refused registration for the principal reason that ' there wa...
Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad148
Veeraswami, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem permitting certain witnesses to be examined on commission . It is common ground that except the witnesses at Vellore, the others reside beyond 200 miles from the court house. The petitioner's ground is that the learned Subordinate Judge was not right in issuing a commission for examining the witnesses at Vellore. It is said that the order was made on a wrong conception of his powers under Order XVI Rule 19(a) of the Civil Procedure Code. In particular, the petitioner's attack is levelled against the observations of the Subordinate Judge:'The Vellore witnesses cannot be ordered to attend in person to give evidence in this court in View of Order XVI Rule 19(a) as they live beyond this court's jurisdiction.'Order XVI Rule 19 reads:'No one shall be ordered to attend in person to give evidence unless he resides: (a) within the local limits of the court's ordinary original jurisdiction; or (b) wi...
Janardhana Mills Ltd. Vs. the Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad383
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This is an application under Section 18(4) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, as amended in I960, For condoning the delay and extending the time for filing the required documents with the Registrar for purposes of registration of the alteration confirmed by this Court by its order dated 25-7-1959, in 0. P. 40 of 1958. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 gives the petitioner a period of 3 months from the date of the order within which to file the documents with the Registrar. Actually, the petitioner is stated to have filed the documents only on 30-4-1959, while the time prescribed had expired earlier on 25-101958. This petition was taken out as late as 15th January 1962:2. Learned Government Pleader for the Registrar of Companies raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that there is no Dower under Sac. 18(4) to condone the delay and extend the time. To decide this question, it is necessary to notice in better detail Section...
Saraswati Ammal Vs. the Life Insurance Corporation of India with Its Z ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ525
Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem permitting certain witnesses to be examined on commission. It is common ground that except the witness at Vellore, the others reside beyond 200 miles from the Court House. The petitioner's ground is that the learned Subordinate Judge was not right in issuing a commission for examining the witnesses at Vellore. It is said, that the order was made on a wrong conception of his powers under Order 16, Rule 19 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code. In particular, the petitioner's attack is levelled against the observations of the Subordinate Judge:The Vellore witnesses cannot be ordered to attend in person to give evidence in this Court in view of Order 16, Rule 19 (a) as they live beyond this Court's jurisdiction.Order 16, Rule 19 reads:No one shall be ordered to attend in person to give evidence unless he resides,(a) within the local limits of the Court's ordinary original jurisdiction; or(b) without s...
S. Guruswami Achari Vs. Vengiduswami Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad71
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This second appeal involves a question of some interest, with regard to the applicability of the exception or proviso enacted as the last part of Section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The brief facts are as follows:2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff (respondent) in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5000 on a promissory note executed on 9th February 1953 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that the suit was in time, for a sum of Rs. 250 had been paid and endorsed on the instrument on 5th January 1956. I may immediately state that the case of the plaintiff presents no difficulty, ex facie, for it is not disputed that the promissory note was executed, and that it was supported by consideration in the shape of a loan advanced by the plaintiff.3. The very important question is whether the defendant (appellant) did or did not take the plea which would entitle ...
M. Marudanayagam Pillai Vs. P.M. Krishnaswami Naidu (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad127
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. L. P. A. No. 55 of 1960: The only question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the execution petition out of which the first of the appeals arise is barred by limitation. The appellant obtained a mortgage decree on 4-11-1947. Under the decree, one half share of item 3 to the plaint-schedule which belonged to defendant 5 was secured for the sum of Rs. 500 payable thereunder. Similarly, the other half share which the second defendant had in the same item was secured for payment of Rs. 400 due from him. Defendant 5, who claimed that he was the owner of the western halt of the property, paid off his liability and full satisfaction was entered. On 28-9-1949, the appellant filed E. P. No. 704 of 1949 against the second defendant for sale of one half share of item 3. The execution petition did not specify whether the property to be sold was the western half or the eastern half. The application, being found to be in order, was duly registered, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »