Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1954 Page 1 of about 15 results (0.019 seconds)

Jan 27 1954 (HC)

In Re: Venugopal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-27-1954

Reported in : AIR1954Mad901

..... public in the manner stated above, though he may not be a member of the race club, or may not choose to enter the race course, what then is the rationale of prohibiting the same information, as contained in the official race book, being published by any agency other than the race duo or other than the newspaper coming within the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 1954 (HC)

V. Narasimhachariar Vs. Egmore Benefit Society, 3rd Branch Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-16-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Mad135

ramaswami, j.1. this is an application for ad-interim injunction filed in c. s. no. 322 of 1954.2. the facts are: the plaintiff v. narasimhachariar is a retired assistant secretary of the government of madras. the defendant is a well known credit institution of this city with many branches viz. the egmore benefit society, 3rd branch limited. the society is run on the principles of a nidhi or permanent fund viz. takes deposits and lends out moneys on first mortgages, jwellery etc. in fact but for such credit institutions the industrial and commercial life of this city will not be able to progress.the plaintiff executed a mortgage in respect of his houses no. 33 gengu reddi road & no. 64 egmore high road, in favour of the defendant society for rs. 32.000/- payable with interest at 71/2 per cent per annum. this amount was borrowed to pay off a prior mortgage of 1947 executed in favour of one thaiyanayagi ammal. this loan was a special loan under the bye-laws of this society repayable within one year viz. on or before 6-12-1951. the mortgage deed expressly conferred upon the mortgagee the power of sale as specified in section 69. transfer, of property act. inasmuch as the plaintiff was paying regularly interest till june 1952 the society did not attempt to recall the loan. the plaintiff defaulted from june 1952 and after he had done so for three months statutory notice of sale as per section 69, transfer of property act was issued by the defendant society to the plaintiff on 14- .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1954 (HC)

Thota Seshayya and ors. Vs. Madabhushi Vedanta Narasimhacharyulu

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-06-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Mad252

1. these are 14 connected second appeals, filed by the tenants against the judgment and- decrees of the subordinate judge, tenali, dismissing their appeals from the judgments and decrees of the district munsif, tenali in the suits for ejectment and arrears of rent and for mesne profits, filed by the land-holders against them, in respect of the lands in vaddimukkala agraharam. the learned district munsif had decreed the suits for ejectment, after overruling all the contentions raised by these appellants. but he had held some discharges to be true. the learned subordinate judge, in appeal, had overruled all their contentions and confirmed the judgments and decrees of the lower court, both as regards ejectment and as regards arrears of rent and mesne profits. the memoranda of cross-objections related to the few points held by the courts below in favour of the appellants.2. the facts were briefly these: the suit lands were covered by a judgment and decree obtained by the plaintiffs land-holders in o. s. no. 3 of 1919 on the file of the subordinate judge's court, gungur, exs. a-1 and a-2, except as regards two items, with which we are not concerned in these appeals but only in the memorandum of cross-objections in s. a. no. 299 of 1950.3. the landholders thereafter let out those lands to these appellants on lease for a period of five years in the year 1941. after the expiry of that lease, they granted another lease to the appellants for one year. that lease expired in march 1947. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1954 (HC)

In Re: B.N. Ramakrishna Naidu and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-14-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Mad100; 1955CriLJ452

orderramaswami, j. 1. these are two connected revision cases filed against the convictions and sentences of the learned 4th presidency magistrate, george town, madras in c. c. nos. 7937 and 7941 of1953. the convicted person in c. c. no. 7937 of 1953 is b. n. ramakrishna naidu who was accused 2 therein and his revision case is no. 343 of 1954 and the convicted person in the other case, is viswanathan chetti whose revision case is 344 of1954. e. n. ramakrishna naidu has been fined rs. 100/- and viswanathan chetti has been fined rs. 50/- and the sandalwood billets in both the cases have been ordered to be confiscated to the government. the convictions were under section 65, city police act. 2. the short facts are: there were frequent thefts of sandalwood logs in the government forest in chittoor and the adjoining tirumalai devasthanam forest. these thefts were taking place between may 1952 and november 1852. the tirumalai tirupathi devasthanam had complained of these thefts to the tirumalai police station. in other words, the authorities were on the look out for checking these thefts. 3. i need not point out that in the city of madras, which is within 100 miles of the chittoor district, there is a brisk trade in sandalwood logs for the purpose of being sold as small billets for grinding sandalwood' paste and for being powdereel as sandalwood powder and for the purpose of cremation in the case of rich people. 4. there is no dispute that the accused in both these cases have been .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 1954 (HC)

In Re: A.S. Krishna and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-07-1954

Reported in : AIR1954Mad993

order1. this is a reference under section 432, criminal p. c. by the third presidency magistrate, saidapet, madras, in a batch of four cases before-him, all relating to offences under the madras prohibition act.in c. c. no. 5388 of 1953, there are two accused, of whom the first accused is charged with offences punishable under sections 4 (1) (a), 4 (1) (j) and 24 of the madras prohibition act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as the act). the second accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 4 (1) (k) and 12 of the act.in c. c. no. 5389 of 1953, the first accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable-under sections 4 (1) (a) and 4 (1) (j) of the act, while the second accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under section 4 (1) go and section 12 of the act.similarly, in c. c. no. 5390 of 1953, the offences alleged against the first accused are offences, under sections 4 cd (a) and 4 (l) (j). those against, the second accused are under section 4 (1) (k) and section 12 of the act.in c. c. no. 5391 of 1953, the second accused in the other three cases is the sole accused and he is charged with offences punishable under section 4 (1) (a) and section 24 of the act.the following provisions indicate the nature of the offences of which the several accused have been charged:'4 (1) whoever (a) imports, exports, transports or possesses-ijquor or any intoxicating drug; or........ (j) consumes or buys liquor or any intoxicating .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1954 (HC)

Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. Lala Gopikissen Gokuldass

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-20-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Mad187

rajagopala ayyangar, j. 1. this is an appeal against the judgment of panchapakesa aiyar j. allowing in part an application filed under section 45 specific belief act, and issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the collector of customs, madras, to release 12 diesel engines belonging to the respondent (applicant in the application) and imported by him on the respondent's paying the entire customs duty payable on the value of the engines plus 12 1/2 per cent of the entire value of the goods and setting aside the order of confiscation which has been passed by the customs authorities in respect of these engines. the collector of customs his filed this appeal while, the respondent who filed the application for the writ of mandamus has filed a memo of cross-objection fn which he has prayed that the learned judge should not have imposed a fine of 12 1/2 per cent on the value of the goods which the learned judge made a condition for their clearance. 2. the facts giving rise to these proceedings are briefly these: the applicant for the writ of mandamus is a firm of importers by name lala oopikissen gokul dass. a public, notice of the government of india, ministry of commerce, dated 11-9-1950, was issued inviting the attention of the importers to the fact that the government had decided to allow the import of diesel engines falling under serial no. 30 from all sources of import on the basis set out in the said notice during the period july to december 1959. this notification .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1954 (HC)

Katragadda China Ramayya Vs. Chiruvella Venkanraju and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-23-1954

Reported in : AIR1954Mad864

satyanarayana rao j. i think the question raised in this case should be decided by a bench. if it becomes necessary it may have to go even before a full bench.a son under the hindu law is undoubtedly liable for the pre-partition debts of the father which are not immoral or illegal. if a decree, however, is obtained against the father alone, and there is a partition of the family properties, in execution of such a decree, the son's share cannot be seized by the creditor as by reason of the partition the disposing power of the father possessed by him over the son's share under the pious obligation of the son to discharge the father's debts can no longer be exercised. with the partition, the power comes to an end. the liability thereafter can be enforced only in a suit. after partition, the son's share can no longer be treated as property over which the father had a disposing power within the meaning of section 60, civil p. c. so much seems to have been settled by the decisions.but in a case in which there is a decree against the father personally in a suit in which the sons were originally impleaded but were exonerated later and there is a partition of the family properties, it has been held in -- 'doraiswami v. naga-swami' : air1929mad898 , that in execution of such a decree, the son's share could be seized and sold. this decision was followed by a single judge of this court in -- thangachami chetti v. kanakasabapathi' : air1944mad393 . recently the supreme court considered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1954 (HC)

Central Brokers Vs. Ramnarayana Poddar and Co.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-15-1954

Reported in : AIR1954Mad1057

the question referred to the full bench is as follows :"is an order made under section 10, c. p. c., or any other provision of law for the stay of trial of a suit, a judgment within the meaning of that term in clause 15 of the letters patent?"the scope of the reference is therefore restricted and circumscribed in character and we are relieved of the task of attempting to define the term "judgment" in clause 15 of the letters patent in all its aspects. an exhaustive definition of that word has not been successfully laid down in any decision in india during the last nearly a century though hidayatullah j. in -- 'manohar damodar v. baliram ganpat', air 1952 nag 357 at p. 376 (fb) (a) has brought out a definition containing the essential ingredients of a judgment derivable from various decisions.2. clause 15 of the letters patent with which we are now concerned is dated 28-12-1865 and has undergone a few amendments which are unnecessary for consideration in the present context. prior to that, there was an earlier letters patent dated 14-5-1862 which by clauses 14 and 15 provided that the high court should have appellate jurisdiction which was till then exercised by the sudder adawlut. it is a matter of common knowledge that the first letters patent dated 14-5-1862 was issued after the charter act of 1861, 24 & 25 queen victoria, ch. 104, was enacted, which by section 8 provided for the abolition of the supreme court and sudder adawlut courts and constituted a high court having .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 1954 (HC)

T.P. Kuppuswami Mudaliar Vs. the Polite Pictures

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-03-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Mad154

rajagopala aiyangar, j.1. this is an appeal against an. order of ramaswami j. granting leave under order 21, rule 50(2), c. p. c., to execute the decree obtained in c. s. no. 812 of 1948 on the file of this court against a firm by name sri murugan films against the appellant here on the allegation that he was a partner in the said firm.2. the suit out of which this proceeding arises was instituted by a registered firm by name 'the polite pictures' against a firm carrying on business in the name of sri murugan films and two others. the plaintiff-firm obtained rights to exhibit a film by name thulasi jalandar in the city of madras, whereas the murugan films obtained distribution rights in respect of the same film in the district of chingleput. the plaintiff-firm alleged that contrary to the terms of the lease deed in favour of the defendant, they had unlawfully exhibited the picture within the city of madras and thus infringed their rights. in the cause-title to the plaint the first defendant was described as sri murugan films a film carrying on business at ambur. the summons in the suit was served upon one m.j. vittal rao who, it is admitted, was the managing partner of the first defendant firm.in the summons, however, taken out to this vittal rao, the description given of the person on whom service was to be effected was 'sri murugan films by sole proprietor m. g. vittal rao.' on receipt of this summons, vittal rao appeared through counsel mr. t.l. venkatarama aiyar then at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1954 (HC)

State of Madras Vs. K.H. Chambers Ltd. and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-10-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Mad314

rajamannar, c.j.1. the only question before this full bench is whether the decision in the -- 'state of madras v. rallis (india) ltd., madras', : air1954mad984 (a), requires reconsideration. the learned judges who decided that case, satyanarayana rao and rajagopalan jj., at the request of the learned advocate general who wished to canvass the correctness of that decision, directed the papers to be posted before another bench. it came on thereafter before me and umamaheswaram j., and we thought it desirable that the matter should be heard before a full bench. 2. the question relates to the levy of sales tax under the madras general sales tax act in respect of transactions in untanned hides and skins. the provisions relating to untanned hides and skins in the act and in the rules made under the act may be first set ' out. section 3 provides that every dealer shall pay for each year a tax on his total turnover for such year, and the tax shall be calculated at the rate of three pies for. every rupee in such turnover. a dealer whose total turnover in any year is less than ten thousand rupees is not liable to pay any tax for that year. (section 3, sub-section (3)). for the purposes of section 3, and other provisions of the act, turnover is to be determined in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. there is a proviso which enacts that in respect of the same transaction of sale, the buyer or the seller, but not both, shall be taxed, section 5, in so far as it is material, .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //