Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-11-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Mad52
(1) This appeal originally came before a Division Bench of this court. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was incompetent. The ruling of this court inRadhakrishnamurthy v. Ethirajulu Chetti and Co., ILR 1945 Mad 564 : (AIR 1945 Mad 184), directly supported the preliminary objection. But, after some argument, it was considered that decision required reconsideration. Hence, this reference to a Full Bench.(2) The appeal purports to be filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Ramaswami, J. In C. M. A. No. 531 of 1954. That appeal was against an order of the City Civil Court, dismissing an application filed by the respondent under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of a suit (O. S. No. 538 of 1954) on the file of the City Civil Court. Section 39(1) inter alia provider for an appeal form an order staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement (cl. (V)).The question is whether an appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-06-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Mad458
Jagadisan. J.(1) These are two writ petitions in the first of which, W. P. No. 913 of 1961, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ, of prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Court of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras from taking possession of the business of the petitioner running in the name and style of 'Oceanic Agencies' and in the second of which W. P. No. 914 of 1961, the petitioner, the same as in W. P. No. 913 of 1961, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records of the Court of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, in I. A. Nos. 604 and 606 of 1961 in O. S. No. 1603 of 1961 and to quash the orders therein dated 21-7-1961.(2) At the very outset we have to deal with the question of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue prerogative writs in the nature of prohibition and certiorari, in respect of the jurisdiction of and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-01-1961
Reported in : (1962)2MLJ241
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which arises from the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., granting a decree in favour of the respondent on the foot of two mortgages, dated 4th March, 1950 and 31st May, 1950, has been placed before us on account of conflict between the decisions in Venkataswami v. Veeranna (1921) 42 M.L.J. 333 : I.L.R. Mad. 429 and Raman Chettiar v. Tirugnanasambandam Pillai : AIR1927Mad230 . Before considering the correctness or otherwise of the decisions referred to above, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts which have given rise to this appeal.2. One Gopalakrishna Raju, who owned substantial properties died on 13th November, 1941, leaving behind him two widows, Lakshmi and Manorama, and three children born of the latter,--a son, who is the appellant in this appeal, and two daughters. A few months before his death, Gopalakrishna Raju executed, and duly registered, a will, bequeathing his properties substantially to the appellant. Lakshmi was given a l...
Tag this Judgment!