Chennai Court July 1908 Judgments
In Re: Rudra Gowd and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ561
ORDER1. The question referred to us is whether a Magistrate who has discharged an accused person under Section 259, Cr.P.C., can re-entertain a fresh complaint on the same facts. The accused are not represented.2. In Chinnathambi v. Salla Gurusawmi Chetty I.L.R. (1904) M. 310 it was held by Sir Arnold White, C.J., sitting as a single Judge, that a Magistrate has such a power. In Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa Gounden I.L.R. (1905) M. 126 the question for decision was whether it was competent to a Magistrate after dismissing a complaint under Section 203 to re-hear the complaint when such order of dismissal has not been set aside by a higher Court. The decision of the majority of the Full Bench was that a Magistrate had power to re-hear the complaint. It was further observed by Sir Arnold White, C. J., that as regards the point which had been under consideration ho distinction could be drawn between an order under Section 203, Cr.P.C., and an order under Section 253 or 259, Cr.P.C. With thi...
Tag this Judgment!R.Y.R.M. Chokkalingam Chettiar Vs. S. Srinivasa Pather and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.170
1. Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar contended that though the 2nd defendant was competent to assign his rights under the contract to the 1st defendant he could not divest himself of liability to the plaintiff, and consequently that the plaintiff was not entitled to put an end to the contract on the ground of the assignment. But assuming that to be so without accepting the argument, the 2nd defendant has here admittedly done more than merely assign his rights to the 1st defendant; he has repudiated his own liability and given notice to the plaintiff that he will no longer be liable for the performance of the contract. Mr. Sundara Aiyar relies upon this repudiation as justifying the rescission of the contract by the plaintiff, and we think he is right.2. It is argued on behalf of the 1st defendant that inasmuch as the liability of joint promisors is made by the Indian Contract Act joint and several (vide Section 43) the repudiation of the contract by one of such promisors will not entitle the prom...
Tag this Judgment!Pannichand and ors. Vs. T. Nanoo Sanker Tawker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ456
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note dated 18th day of September 1905 for Rs. 7,500 with interest at 48 per cent. The note was executed in favor of Koosalji Goolab Chand and the suit is brought in the name of three plaintiffs trading under that name. The defendant put the plaintiffs to the proof of their title to sue but there is evidence which is uncontradicted that they trade in partnership under that name and have previously sued under it, and the first issue which deals with this point must be found in the plaintiffs' favour. The defendant also pleads that the consideration for the plaint note was immoral, that there was a partial failure of consideration as he received only Rs. 5,000 and not Rs. 7,500, and that having regard to the rate of interest and the defendant's youth and inexperience the transaction was a hard and unconscionable bargain from which the defendant is entitled to be relieved. The burden of proving these issues is, of course, on the defendant. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Sundarappaiyar and ors. Vs. Rama Hari Hari Rama Arunachella Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ487
1. A simple money decree was obtained against the ist defendant, and in execution thereof the ist defendant's undivided one-fourth share in certain immoveable property was sold and purchased by one Velayappa Chetty who conveyed his right to the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sues for partition and possession of the share. Prior to the execution sale the ist defendant had become an insolvent and all his property, including the share now in question, had vested in the Official Assignee under Section 7 of the Indian Insolvent Debtors Act, 11 and 12 Victoria, Chap. 21. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has any interest which entitles him to maintain the suit. In Ram Soondur Dey v. Shoshimohun Pal Chowdry (1882) 11 C.L.R. 389 it was held that where an order has been made under Section 7 of the Indian Insolvent Debtors Act vesting the property of a judgment-debtor in the Official Assignee the judgment-debtor has no saleable interest in such property. In Sadodin ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. G. Smith
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.712
1. This is an appeal from a decree of the learned Chief Justice sitting as Commissioner in Insolvency.2. The facts of the case are as follows:3. On the 12th October 1906 Mr. G. Smith wrote to Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co., Madras, enclosing a cheque in his favour on the National Bank of India for Rs. 627 and asked them to receive the amount in fixed deposit together with Rs. 573 which he would remit on receiving their acknowledgment--the whole amount to be treated as a fixed deposit for one year payable to Mr. G. Smith and Mrs. V. Smith, either or survivor. On the 13th October 1906, Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. wrote in reply acknowledging the cheque, and stating that on receipt of the further sum they would, as desired, place the total amount of Rs. 1, 200 in fixed deposit for 12 months, and issue and send Mr. Smith their receipt therefor in favour of himself and Mrs. F. Smith, either or survivor. Mr. Smith did not at once remit the balance, and before he had done so, Messrs. Arbuthont & Co. bec...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeva Iyer and anr. Vs. Sankarasubramania Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ450
1. By a registered deed, Exh. A, one Ponnu Sankara Subbaiyer settled certain immoveable property on certain charitable trusts and appointed himself as hukdar for life and provided that, after his death, his grandson Sankara Subramania Iyer, should succeed him as hukdar, and that such grandson and every successive hukdar should in turn select a successor in like manner. Subsequently, the settlor executed two deeds Exhs. B and C by one of which he purported to cancel the appointment of Sankara Subramania Aiyar as hukdar, while by the other, he appointed the present plaintiffs. On the settlor's death, the plaintiffs took possession in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., and then instituted the present suit. The District Munsif decided in his favour, but the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the settlor had no power to revoke the appointment, under Exh. A, of the defendant. For the appellant, it is contended that part of Exh. A which appoints the defendant mus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›