Chennai Court August 1894 Judgments
Queen Empress Vs. Para Palayathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ242
1. Section 43, Madras Act I of 1886, provides that when by reason of default of appearance of a person bailed to appear before an Abkari Inspector such officer is of opinion that proceedings should be had to compel payment of the penalty mentioned in the bond, he shall forward the bond to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence of which the person bailed was accused, and the Magistrate shall proceed to compel payment of the penalty in the manner provided by the Criminal Procedure Code for the recovery of penalties in the like cases of default of appearance by a person bailed to appear before his own court.2. The procedure which the Magistrate has to follow is laid down in Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code. The question is whether the (sic) of Section 43 of the Madras Abkari Act makes the Magistrate a (sic) officer and takes away from him the discretion which should be at liberty to exercise if the defaulter had failed to appear before his own court. If the Magistrate i...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Reddy Vs. Abbaji Reddy and 6 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ265
1. The District Judge has dismissed the appeal under Section 551 C P. C. on the ground that post diem interest cannot be given. The tennis of Exhibit I are not very clear, and It is possible that they may mean only that 12 per cent. interest is chargeable instead of 9 per cent. from date of bond to the date fixed for the repayment of the principal, and that in case of default the mortgagee should at once proceed to recover the principal and interest at the enhanced rate.2. But though we are not able to hold that the interpretation put upon the bond I by the courts below is incorrect, we may point out that under the Interest Act XXXII of 1839 the court has power to give interest upon mortgage-money, as it is money payable at a certain time and under a written instrument. Interest post diem may therefore be awarded at such, rate as is reasonable, if not always at the rate mentioned in the contract.3. The joint effect of the Interest Act and of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act i...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Palayathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad48
1. Section 43, Madras Act I of 1886, provides that when, by reason of default of appearance of a person bailed to appear before an Abkari Inspector, such officer is of opinion that proceedings should be had to compel payment of the penalty mentioned in the bond, he shall forward the bond to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence of which the person bailed was accused, and the Magistrate shall proceed to compel payment of the penalty in the manner provided by the Criminal Procedure Code for the recovery of penalties in the like cases of default of appearance by a person bailed to appear before his own Court.2. The procedure which the Magistrate has to follow is laid down in Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code. The question is whether the language of Section 43 of the Madras Abkari Act makes the Magistrate a mere executing officer and takes away from him the discretion which he would be at liberty to exercise if the defaulter had failed to appear before his own Court. If ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Reddi Vs. Appaji Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR18Mad248
1. The District Judge has dismissed the appeal under Section 551, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that post diem interest cannot be given. The terms of Exhibit I are not very clear, and it is possible that they may mean only that 12 per cent, interest is chargeable instead of 9 per cent, from the date of the bond to the date fixed for the repayment of the principal, and that in case of default the mortgagee should at once proceed to recover the principal and interest at the enhanced rate.2. But, though we are not able to hold that the interpretation put upon the bond, Exhibit I, by the Courts below is incorrect, we may point out that under the Interest Act XXXII of 1839, the Court has power to give interest upon mortgage money, as it is money payable at a certain time and under a written instrument. Interest post diem may, therefore, be awarded at such rate as is reasonable, if not always at the rate mentioned in the contract. The joint effect of the Interest Act and of Section 88 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sriramulu and ors. Vs. Sobhanadri Appa Rau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1894
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad21
Parker, J.1. I find myself unable to reconcile the decision of the learned Judge with the decision in Periyanayagam Piliai v. Virappa Naikan 7 M.H.C.R. 51 and that in Easwara Doss v. Subbaraya Naicken Civil Revision Petition No. 136 of 1891 (unreported), to which Mr. Justice Muttusami Ayyar was a party. These decisions do not appear to have been brought to his notice. It is stated that plaintiff's father had tendered pattas for the fasli years for which the rent is now claimed. Having done so he was in a position, under Section 71 of the Rent Recovery Act, to sue for the rent notwithstanding that a suit to determine the terms of the tenancy was pending. The pendency of that suit did not prevent the accrual of the cause of action, though the determination of the suit for rent might have to await the decision in the suit brought to determine the terms of the patta. The period of limitation began to run on the dates on which the rent fell due and the obligation arose on the tender of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pullayya Vs. Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad144
1. Here the judgment-debtor was in possession at the date of the sale and is now defendant. Plaintiff bought from the purchaser at the Court sale and can be in no better position than his vendor. Nothing was done upon the writ of possession issued at the suit of the vendor's widow. The execution purchaser would be barred and therefore the plaintiff is equally barred Arumuga v. Chockalinqam I.L.R. 15 Mad. 831 The decision in Kishori Mohun Roy Chowdhry v. Chunder Nath Pal I.L.R. 14 Cal. 644 is distinguished by the fact that in that case there was formal delivery. We must reverse the decree and we dismiss the suit with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Ayyar Vs. Municipal Council of Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad183
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is a first-grade pleader, and defendant is the Municipal Council at Salem. On the 29th June 1892, the latter assessed the former at Rs. 25 for exercising his profession as a pleader of the District Court under Class III, Schedule A, of Madras Act IV of 1884. Plaintiff paid the tax under protest and brought this small cause suit for its refund. Two questions were raised for decision before the District Munsif at Salem, viz., (1) whether the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and (2) whether the plaintiff is entitled to the refund claimed by him? The District Munsif held that he had jurisdiction and that plaintiff was lawfully taxed. It is urged in revision on petitioner's behalf that he was not liable to pay profession tax and that if he was, he could only be taxed under Class IV.2. Schedule A, Class III, specifies 'a pleader practising in any Civil and Sessions Court, Subordinate Judge's Court or Court of Small Causes' as liabl...
Tag this Judgment!Chakrapani Vs. Varahalamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad227
1. It is urged on behalf of petitioner that the Guardian and Wards Act is not applicable to the scheduled districts in the absence of a notification under Section 5 of Act XIV of 1874. We find, however, that the Act VIII of 1890 extends to the whole of British India (see Section 1, Clause 2). Therefore no notification under Act XIV of 1874 is necessary.2. It is urged, on the other hand, on behalf of counter-petitioner, that, under Act VIII of 1890, Section 47, the appeal lies directly to this Court, and that, therefore, the petition was wrongly presented to Government in the first instance; but we observe that the order appealed from is not that of a 'District Court' but of the Governor's Agent, and therefore we derive our jurisdiction not directly from Act 'VIII of 1890, but by the reference made by Government under Rule XXXI of the Agency Rules passed under Act XXIV of 1839. We are also not prepared to attach weight to the objection that it was not competent to Government to refer to...
Tag this Judgment!Jambuvien Vs. Venkatarayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)4MLJ235
Muthuswami Aiyar, J.1. It is urged in support of this appeal that the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge in insolvency matters is limited to decrees actually passed by himself and does not extend to decrees passed on appeal from his decrees by the appellate court although the suits in which they are passed are cognizable by him. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the wording of Section 360 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section is in these terms:--'The Local Government may by notification in the official Gazette invest any court other than a District Court with the powers conferred on District Courts by Sections 344 to 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the District Judge may transfer to any court situated in his District and so invested any case instituted under Section 344. A court so invested may entertain an application under, Section 344 by any person who has been arrested or imprisoned or against whose property any order of attachment has been made i...
Tag this Judgment!Kristamma Naidu and ors. Vs. Chapa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad410
Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt. C.J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are whether the cases mentioned are open to revision under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code.2. 'The High Court may exercise its powers of revision if the Court by which the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The reference states that the District Judge decided the case on a point taken by the Court itself as to which no issue was recorded, and it is further contended that the Judge acted illegally in admitting the appeals after they had become barred under the Law of Limitations. It is not stated that the attention of the Judge was called to these points, or that any review petition was presented. That the Judge had jurisdiction to try the cases appears to be certain, and 1 am of opinion that, although the Judge undoub...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »