Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing V.A.L.R.M. Lakshmanan Chetty And Anr. vs V.A.L.R.M.L. Muthaya Chetty And Ors. on 16 September, 1919

In Re: B. Chandrasekaran vs Unknown on 13 August, 1957

It has been said that the text laid down in R. v. Hicklin L.R. (1868) 3 Q.B. 360 must be applied in the light of the changed approach to the treatment of sex since 1868 R. v. Martin Seeker Warburg Ltd (1954) 2 All E.R. 683. On 2nd July, 1954 at the central criminal Court Stable, J., told the Jury : Are we to take our literary standards as being the level of something that is suitable reading for the decently brought up young female aged fourteen. A mass of literature-great literature is wholly unsuitable for reading by the adolescent, but that does not mean that a publisher is guilty of criminal offence for making those works available to the general public. "A book which might not affect the mind of an archibishop might well affect the mind of. . .
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs L.Ramesh on 21 April, 2023

22. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in R. Elamalai Chetty v. R. Rathnavelu Chetty alias Ratna Chetty, 1971 (2) An. WR 193, is relied upon in connection with the value and status of rough pattas. In the said case, the Division Bench was concerned with the question as to whether the rough patta in that case was one issued under Section 11 of the Act. The said judgment evidences the fact that for carrying out the ryotwari setdement of an estate under Section 22 of the Act, the settlement authorities were in the practice of following the old procedure prescribed in the Manual of Instructions for conducting resettlement in the Madras Presidency, issued in the year 1951. A copy of the said Manual had been placed before the Court in that case. The Division Bench, after a comprehensive analysis of the procedure laid down in the said Manual, recorded that after rough pattas were issued under the provisions thereof, a hearing would be conducted upon the objections raised and that the said rough patta hearing was to be conducted at least three weeks after the issuance of the rough pattas. After hearing such objections, orders were to be passed and communicated to all the parties concerned. Fair accounts were to be prepared carrying out the changes in the land 15 HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.682 of 2022 register and the rough chitta, on the basis of such orders. The fair accounts were then to be sent to the Revenue Department for preparation of the resettlement register. Basing upon this analysis, the Division Bench held that the rough patta issued under the said Manual is not one issued under Section 11 of the Act and is therefore, not a document of title or one constituting evidence of title. The Bench held that it is only a step taken in the process of carrying out resettlement operations and it was not envisaged under the said regulations that after hearing of objections, a regular patta would be granted. The entire process only enabled the settlement authorities to carry out the necessary changes in the land register and the rough chitta, and for preparation of the resettlement register. On the facts of that case, the Division Bench held that the patta therein had not been granted under Section 11 of the Act, and accordingly, the rough patta granted in that case did not have the effect of conferring exclusive title upon the patta holder.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Perumal Naicker vs Sithalakshmi Ammal on 31 August, 1955

A husband deserts his wife if he wilfully absents himself from the society of his wife in spite of her wish; desertion may be inferred from certain acts in one case which, in another would not justify the same inference: Williams v. Williams (1864) 3 Sw. & Tr. 547 : 164 E.R. 1388; R. v. Leresche L.R. (1891) 2 Q.B. 418; Jackson v. Jackson L.R. (1924) P. 19, 23; Pulford v. Pulford L.R. (1923) p. 18; contrast Thomas v. Thomas L.R. (1924) P. 194 with Pratt v. Pratt L.R. (1939) A.C. 417 and compare.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

B. Eswaramma And Etc. vs A. Appu Rao And Etc. on 28 October, 1987

The same view was taken by Ramachandra Raju, J., in K.L Setty v. M.L.K. Setty (1982) 1 APLJ (HC) 345. The learned Judge held that it cannot be laid down as a general rule that an eviction petition filed under S. 10(3) of the Act should be dismissed for failure on the part of the landlord to specify the particular business which he proposes to commence and that each case has to be decided on its own facts. The learned Judge referred to the decisions of Jeevan Reddy, J., and Punnayya, J., in the earlier decisions and explained stating that those decisions cannot be understood to have laid down as a general rule that an eviction petition filed under S. 10(3) of the Act should be dismissed for failure on the part of the landlord to specify the particular business which he proposes to commence and that those observations came to be made because in those cases, the bona fide requirement of the landlords were found against. Thus according to the learned Judge, the earlier two decisions have not laid down as a general rule the eviction petition should fail in the absence of particulars in the petition. Ramachandra Raju J., was therefore, of the view that each case depends upon the facts of that case and that entire material must be considered. The following observations of the learned Judge at page 349 are relevant "If the evidence is conclusive on the bona fide requirements of the landlord and the tenant has not suffered any prejudice, it will not be right to refuse the relief of eviction merely on the ground that the business which the landlord proposes to commence was not specified in the petition for eviction."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Miss Moselle Solomon vs Martin And Co. on 20 December, 1934

22. The law on this point is correctly stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Mcleod to which I have already referred. The learned Judge held that though the plaintiff could have sued both the defendants (the principal and the agent) together in one suit, yet if he sued one of them to judgment, it was not competent to him to sue the other in a second suit. The reasons for this rule were stated by Lord Atkinson in the case of R.M.K.R.M. Somasundaram Chetty v. M.R.M. Subramanian Chetty (1926) A.C. 761 : 99 Ind. Cas. 742 : (1926) M.W.N. 832 : A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 136 : 4 C.W.N. 1 : 25 L.W. 163 (P.C.), as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ariyur Mohammed Habeebur Rahman And ... vs Ansuri Varamma (Died) And Anr. on 12 March, 1973

"............ Where, in proceedings under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, one of the parties to the arbitration agreement files objection against the award on the ground that the arbitrators had misconducted themselves and the Court after overruling the objection proceeds to make the Award a rule of the Court , an appeal against the order of the Court refusing to set aside the award falls under Section 39 (1) (vi) of the Act. It is not an appeal falling under Section 17 of the Act read with Section 96, Civil P.C." and V. Chetti v. V. Chetty, AIR 1957 Andh Pra 493 in which a Division Bench of this Court , consisting of Subba Rao, C.J., (as he was then) and Bhimasankaram, J., held that :-
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next