Chennai Court August 1895 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vizianagaram Maharajah Vs. Sitaramarazu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad100
1. The plaintiff's right to resume the villages held by the defendants is chiefly put upon the ground that the latter and their predecessors have always held and still hold by tenure of service. It is also contended that, by the custom of the zamindary, the Maharajah had the right to resume the villages, and that the grant of 1853 made by the plaintiff's predecessor must be construed with reference to the acts done and views expressed by him at or about that time. Since 1853 the defendants have been holding under an instrument, dated the 13th September 1853, which recites that the villages then under attachment had been granted to their ancestors for family purposes under tenure of service, and that no kattubadi had hitherto been payable. It provides that henceforward kattubadi shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 300 a year, and requires that the grantees 'shall behave themselves properly, abiding by the orders of the circar as was done before the attachment (sabak).' The attachment me...
Queen-empress Vs. Rappel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad490
1. The High Court Proceedings of 7th December 1866 (3 M.H.C.R. App. IX) and 24th April 1873 (7 M.H.C.R. App. XXII) were passed before the Penal Code was amended by Act VIII of 1882, and the effect of the amendment is to make Sections 40 and 64, Indian Penal Code, applicable to offences under the Police Act XXIV of 1859. The incorporation of Sections 3 and 41 of Madras Act III of 1889 in Act XXIV of 1859 does not, therefore, now render the provisions of Sections 40 and 64, Indian Penal Code, inapplicable.2. think the sentences are not open to any legal objection.1. Section 4: Whoever neglects to fence in or protect any well, Neglecting to fence in tank or other dangerous place or structure, or, well, tank, &c. whoever causes any offensive matter to run from any house, factory, dungheap or the like into the street--shall be liable on Causing offensive matter conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees or to imprisonment to run from house &c. of either description which may ex...
Adipurnam Pillai Vs. D'Sena and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR19Mad85
1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Shephard disposing of an application under Section 182 of the Indian Companies Act in the matter of the Madras Building Association (Limited).2. The Madras Building Association (Limited) is now in liquidation, but prior to the petition for liquidation certain shareholders gave notice of withdrawal from the company, and the question for decision is, what are the rights of the withdrawing members between themselves' and the other members of the association; in other words, have the members who have given notice of withdrawal a right to be paid out of the assets in priority to the other members? The learned Judge decided that they had priority.3. Article 42 of the memorandum of the articles of association says that a member who has received no loan may withdraw from the association and receive the amount at his credit calls minus the arrears (if any) and interest due thereon on giving one month's notice, such withdrawals to be paid from fi...
Amir Badsha Sahib Vs. B. Venkatachela Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1895
Reported in: (1895)5MLJ206
Shephard, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether an appeal lies against an order refusing relief to a decree-holder as against the bidder at an auction sale who is alleged to have made default.2. The 293rd section of the code provides that the deficiency of price, resulting on a resale occasioned by the purchaser's default shall be certified to the court by the officer conducting the sale,. 'and shall at the instance of either the judgment-creditor or the judgment-debtor be recoverable from the defaulter under the rules contained in the chapter for the execution of a decree for money.3. No such certificate as the section contemplates appears to have been made. The decres-holder alleging the bidder's default simply asked for a warrant against the alleged defaulter. This application was dismissed by the District Munsif on the merits. On appeal being made the District Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The 293rd section is not one of the sections mentioned...
Amir Baksha Sahib Vs. Venkatachala Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR18Mad439
Shephard, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether an appeal lies against an order refusing relief to a decree--holder as against the bidder at an auction-sale who is alleged to have made default.2. The 293rd Section of the Code provides that the deficiency of price, resulting on a re-sale occasioned by the purchaser's default, shall be certified to the Court by the officer conducting the sale, 'and shall, at the instance of either the judgment-creditor or the judgment-debtor, be recoverable from the defaulter under the rules contained in the chapter for the execution of a decree for money.'3. No such certificate as the Section contemplates appears to have been made. The decree--holder, alleging the bidder's default, simply asked for a warrant against the alleged defaulter. This application was dismissed by the District Munsif on the merits. 'On appeal being made the District Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The 293rd Section is not one of the Sections ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›