Chennai Court February 1894 Judgments
Ganapati Bhatta Vs. Bharati Swami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad222
1. The parties to this appeal are Havik Brahmans, who form a sub-division of the Brahman community in South Canara. First respondent is the head or the ecclesiastical chief of the sub-caste; the second is his parupathyagar or-manager; and appellant is a member of the caste subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of first respondent. On the 17th May 1887, first respondent issued against appellant a provisional order of excommunication and communicated it to the Vaidikas and Grahastas, secular and lay Brahmans of Mangalore. Three caste offences are mentioned in the order. The first is that when the guru went to appellant's division or hobli, appellant neglected to visit him and pay the kanike or fee as other Havik Brahmans did, though lie was duly apprised of first respondent's arrival; the second is that when the people of Vittal remonstrated with him against his conduct and advised him to see his guru, he referred to his disapproval of the excommunication of one Sham Bhatta and others of...
Tag this Judgment!Abboy Chetti Vs. Ramachandra Rau and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad461
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. This case is governed by the decision in Pattat Ambadi Marar v. Krishnan I.L.R. 11 Mad. 290 wherein it was held that an assignment by an agreement in writing of all the assignor's property, including a promissory note, was held not to be sufficient to sustain a suit by the assignee on the note in the absence of an endorsement. The ground of decision is that a promissory note cannot be negotiated by the mere execution of a deed of assignment. The right of suit did not pass to the plaintiffs by operation of law, for the company of which defendant was a member was wound up, and it is admitted that the plaintiffs' firm derived its right from assignment by Exhibits B and C. The promissory note purports to be payable to the payee or order, and it is not denied that it is a negotiable instrument. I set aside the decree of the District Munsif, and direct that the suit be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Volkart Brothers Vs. C. Ruthnavelu Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ179
ORDER1. The first question referred for our opinion is what is the proper construction of the agreement, Exhibit A. By that document the defendant agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs 120 cases of condensed milk which were to be shipped in London and delivered in Madras. The part of the agreement as to which there is a conflict is in these terms, 'shipment in six lots of twenty cases each at monthly intervals.' 2. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was contended that the expression shipment at monthly intervals' means shipment in consecutive months, or, as the learned Chief Judge puts it, shipment month by month, whereas the defendant contended that the expression meant that the shipment should be made at intervals of a month from each other.3. It is not suggested on either side that the expression is used among merchants in any technical sense. Now the term 'monthly' can only mean once a month or every month and the term 'intervals' the time between two shipments. In the ordinary sense ...
Tag this Judgment!Palamalai Padayachi and anr. Vs. Shanmuga Ausari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad302
1. This is clearly a suit within Section 3 of the Regulation, and we mast, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative. There is no necessary conflict between the two cases cited in the order of reference....
Tag this Judgment!Volkart Brothers Vs. Rutnavelu Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad63
1. The first, question referred for our opinion is what is the proper construction of the agreement, Exhibit A. By that document the defendant agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs 120 cases of condensed milk which were to be shipped in London and delivered in Madras. The part of the agreement as to which there is a conflict is in these terms, 'shipment in six lots of twenty cases each at monthly intervals.'2. On behalf of the plaintiff's it was contended that the expression 'shipment at monthly intervals' means shipment in consecutive months or, as the learned Chief Judge puts it, shipment month by month, whereas the defendant contended that the expression meant that the shipment should be made at intervals of a month from each other.3. It is not suggested on either side that the expression is used among merchants in any technical sense. Now the term 'monthly' can only mean once a month or every month and the term 'intervals' the time between two shipments. In the ordinary sense of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›