Chennai Court August 1903 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.
Dorasami Pillai Alias Akantachia Pillai and ors. Vs. Muthusami Mooppan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ479
1. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal. First, was the sale of the lands in question bad for the reason that the requirements of Section 18 of the Act (VIII of 1865) with reference to the public notice were not complied with? Secondly, was the suit bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action?2. As regards the first question Section 18 requires a notice to be fixed up specifying the property to be sold and the time and place fixed for its sale and provides that in fixing the day of sale not less than seven days must be allowed from the date of the notice. The time fixed for the sale was the 22nd, 23rd, 25th and 26th of April.3. The notice was dated the 14th of April, but the District Munsif found, and there was evidence to support the finding, that it was not published till the 16th i.e., less than seven days before the first day fixed for sale. The District Judge was of opinion that the evidence did not establish that the notice was published less than seven day...
Narayanaswami Reddiyar Vs. the Madras Railway Company (Limited)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1903
Reported in: (1903)13MLJ488
1. This is an appeal against the decree of Boddam, J., dismissing the suit brought by the appellant as the assignee (Exhibit W) of all 'the moneys and outstandings' due, from the respondent, to one Mr. O'Shaughnessy under a contract (Exhibit B) between him and the respondent, in regard to the construction of the Kolar Gold Fields Re-alignment Line. The suit was for the recovery of Rs. 8,361-13-11, being the balance (with interest) alleged to be due under the said contract, after giving credit to the sum of Rs. 6,498-3-11 (Exhibit KK) paid by the Company to the appellant as the assignee of Mr. O'Shaughnessy, The amount sued for copsists of two items i.e., a sum of Rs. 3,000, being the amount deposited by Mr. O'Shaughnessy as security for the performance of the contract and another sum of Rs. 4,767-12-7, representing the 10 per cent deductions withheld by the Company, (under the provisions of the contract) as further security, from payments made, from time to time, to Mr. O'Shaughnessy (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›