Chennai Court December 1963 Judgments
Gnanamuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad446
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. The petitioner was a Sub Inspector of Police in Veerapandi in about 1959. There was a robbery in his house and gold jewels of his wife had been snatched away. One Mookan Servai, suspected of this crime, was tried for the offence but he was acquitted. During the investigation, of the case by the petitioner, he had recovered two gold ingots from Guruswami Asari (P. W. 1) and Ponnukamakshi Asari. They had claimed the ingots as belonging to them. But when the petitioner produced them in Court after seizure on 6-10-1959, he was allowed to keep them on his undertaking to produce them in Court when called upon to do so. After the acquittal of Mookan. Servai, the trial Court ordered the jewels to be retained by the petitioner. But, on appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the said order and directed the trial Court to hold a fresh enquiry as to the ownership of the ingots. The Magistrate then directed the petitioner to produce the ingots in Court and he produced...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gnanamuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ435
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. The petitioner was a Sub Inspector of Police in Veerapandi in about 1959. There was a robbery in his house and gold jewels of his wife had been snatched away. One Mookan Servai suspected of this crime, was tried for the offence but he was acquitted. During the investigation of the case by the petitioner, he had recovered two gold ingots from Guruswami Asari (P. W. 1) and Ponnukamakahi Asari. They had claimed the ingots as belonging to them. But when the petitioner produced them in Court after seizure on 6-1O-1959, he was allowed to keep them on his undertaking to produce them in Court when called upon to do so. After the acquittal of Mookan Servai, the trial Court ordered the jewels to be retained by the petitioner. But, on appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the said order and directed the trial Court to hold a fresh enquiry as to the ownership of the ingots. The Magistrate then. directed the petitioner to produce the ingots in Court and he produced t...
Tag this Judgment!V. Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. Baby Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad29
(1) This appeal is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput in O. P. 15 of 1957, refusing to grant a divorce to the appellant under S. 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 25 of 1955.(2) The appellant married the respondent on 18-9-1946 at Nandivaram. The parties led a happy married life till 1952. It is alleged in the petition that subsequently the respondent contracted illicit intimacy with one Kamalanathan Naidu, who was living in the same village. When the appellant and his father came to know of this intimacy, they chided her for her misconduct. The respondent then left her husband's protection and went to her mother's place at Rajkilpakkam. Kamalanathan Naidu followed the respondent and lived with her for some months at Rajkilpakkam. Subsequently the respondent deserted Kamalanathan and contracted illicit intimacy with one N. S. Mani and was living with him in Washermenpet. During her stay with N. S. Mani, she conceived and it is alleged that she aborted the c...
Tag this Judgment!Johara Bibi Vs. Subera Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad373
Veeraswami, J.1. The only question in this. second appeal is whether there was a valid gift of the A schedule property in favour of the first defendant-appellant. The gift was by her mother, the first plaintiff by a deed dated 7-9-1949. The first plaintiff had three daughters, the first defendant, one Fathima and another Sharfunnissa Begum. She by that document purported to make a gift of several schedules of properties to each of the donees of whom the first defendant was one subject to a provision that each of the donees will have to secure maintenance to the donor in a certain form. The recital in the document was to the effect that the donor was in possession and that she put the donee, in this case, the first defendant, in possession of the A schedule property. Apparently due to misunderstanding the first plaintiff purported to cancel the gift, in so far as it related to the first defendant, on 23.6.1958, and later gave away the A schedule property for charities under another docu...
Tag this Judgment!Jevarathnammal Vs. P. Sreenivasa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad482
Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act [25 of 1955). The appellant is the wife of one P. Srinivasa Mudaliar. He filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights. This was resisted by the wife, the appellant herein, who has no objection to live with, her husband, but she has been subjected to cruelty and that it is, therefore, unsafe, to live with her husband.2. The lower court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the case, gave a finding that there was no cruelty on the part of the husband and as such the appellant (wife) was bound to go and live with the husband, and directed the wife accordingly, and ordered the application as prayed for by the husband. It is against this order of the restitution of conjugal rights that the present appeal has been filed by the wife.3. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The appellant was married to the respondent herein on 4-2-1957. The respondent seems to be an educated man. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Jabbar Sahib Vs. V.R. Renu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad514
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 370 of 1958, on the file of the District Munsif of Vellore. He had taken a lease of the plaint schedule properties from the defendant for a period of 5 years by a registered lease deed dated 25-8-1956 and had paid in advance a sum of Rs. 750 as rent for the entire period. Subsequently, the minor son of the defendant, represented by his grand-father as next friend, filed a suit O. S. No. 714 of 1956 impleading the present defendant as the first defendant, and the present plaintiff as the second defendant. In that suit the minor son of the defendant alleged that his father was wasting the joint family properties, that the transactions effected by him including the suit lease were effected for debts of an Avyavaharika nature, that therefore they would not be binding on the minor son, and that consequently the Joint family properties including the properties in the present suit, the subject-matter of the lease, sh...
Tag this Judgment!Saroja Mills, Limited Vs. the Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ197
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The order confirming the alteration was made by this Court on 11th, January, 1963, and it was drawn up on 3rd April, 1963. On 15th January, the petitioner applied for a copy of the order ; but for want of steps it was struck off on 17th April, 1963. The petitioner again applied for a copy on 24th June, 1963. The question is whether the copy application is in time.2. To decide this matter, it is necessary to refer to three sections of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 requires that an order made under Section 17(5) should be filed with the Registrar of Companies within three months from the date of the order. Sub-section (4) of Section 18 enables the Court, by order, to extend the time for the filing of the order by such periods as it thinks proper. Where there is failure to comply with the requirement of Section 18(1), the effect of such failure is indicated by Section 19, which is that, at the expiry of the period mentioned in Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Rathinasamy Moopanar and anr. Vs. Subramania Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ244
P. Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur, dismissing their application under Section 101 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1959). They made the application as trustees of Sri Subramaniaswami and nine other temples in Vadalai Gudalur village in Lalgudi Taluk, having been appointed as such by the Area Committee, Tiruchirapalli, and claiming as such trustees to be entitled to possession of the temples and their properties which are in the possession of respondents 1 to 3 who, it was alleged, did not deliver possession in spite of repeated demands. The fourth respondent is one of the trustees appointed by the Area Committer ; but he was impleaded as a respondent as he was not willing to join the petitioners.2. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the application contending that the appointment of the petitioners and the fourth respondent as trustees by the Area Committee was illegal. They f...
Tag this Judgment!The Western India Match Co. Ltd. Vs. the Manohara Match Works and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad42
(1) Petition under Ss. 56, 107 and 108, Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 43 of 1958 for rectification of the Register of trade mark by canceling the registration of the trade mark 'Matulaies' adopted by respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners are reputed manufactures of safety matches, and one of their trademark is 'three mangoes' which they are using ever since 1934, on the packets and labels of the match boxes sold extensively in different districts on Andhra Pradesh and more particularly in the districts of Guntur, Krishna, Khammameth and Warangal. The first respondent is a proprietary concern of 2nd respondent, P. Muthiah Nadar, and the 3rd respondent, the joint owner of the trade mark 'Matulaies'. The complaint of the petitioners is that respondents 1 to 3, on or about 1959, conceived the idea of adopting the mark of 'Matulaies' similar to that of the registered trade mark of three mangoes of the petitioners maliciously and with the intent of causing wrongful loss to the petitioners.T...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Kalathi Mudaliar Vs. Ellammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad463
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. The question that arises in this civil revision petition is whether the Sub Court, Vellore, has got jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order passed in a petition filed by the petitioner in the Sub Court, Chittoor.2. The petitioner filed a petition 0. P. No. 25 of 1952 in the Sub Court, Chittoor, Under Section 5 of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949 for dissolution of his marriage with Ellammal, the respondent Therein. On 2-8-11952 the respondent was declared ex-parte and an order was passed by the Chittoor Sub Court, directing dissolution of marriage. The parties were residents of Sholinghur, which was originally part of the Chittoor Judicial District, and hence the petition 0. P. No. 25 of 1952 was filed in the Chittoor Sub Court. Subsequent to the order passed by that court, Sholinghur came within the jurisdiction of North Arcot Dt, under Act 30 of 1953. On 11-6-1959, the respondent filed an application Under Section 150 and Order 9 R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »