Chennai Court September 1909 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.
The Official Assignee of Madras and ors. Vs. the Oriental Government S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.200
Munro, J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee from an order of the learned Chief Justice sitting as Commissioner in Insolvency. The material facts are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. A sum of Rs. 970 was due to one Marian Chandy by the Oriental Government Life Assurance Company Limited, the respondents; Marian Chandy asked the respondents to remit the money direct to her by a cheque drawn on Arbuthnot & Co. By an oversight the respondents sent to Arbuthnot & Co. a cheque for Rs. 970 drawn on the National Bank of India and asked them to place the amount to the credit of Marian Chandy. The latter had at the time no account with Arbuthnot & Co. Arbuthnot & Co. informed Marian Chandy that the amount was at her credit. She then on the 5th October 1906 asked Arbuthnot & Co. to remit the money. Arbuthnot & Co. sent her a form of receipt for signature. This receipt she duly signed and returned and the receipt cached Arbuthnot & Co. before they suspended payment. The responde...
The Official Assignee of Madras and ors. Vs. B. Krishnaswami Naidu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.331
Munro, J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee from an order of the learned Chief justice, sitting as Commissioner in Insolvency.2. On the 2nd June 1892, the Rajah of Venkatagiri executed a deed of trust with a view to making provisions for his daughters. The trustees appointed were the five persons who were at the time carrying on business under the style or firm of Arbuthnot and Co.3. The deed provided that the terms, trustees or trustee, should be taken to include not only the then members of the firm of Arbuthnot & Co. but also the members or the members for the time being constituting the firm of Arbuthnot & Co. The deed, however, went on to say that if a trustee died, or left British India permanently, or ceased to be a member of the firm of Arbuthnot & Co. or desired to be discharged, or refused or became incapable to act, then the settlor or, after his death, the surviving trustees, or continuing trustees, in which class retiring trustees are included, might appoint a n...
Pozhath Mannoth Govindan Nair Vs. Pattachamarth Manakkal Jedavedan Nam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.513
1. The only question is whether the District Munsif had jurisdiction to try the suit. The 1st defendant under the orders of the Maharajah of Cochin held an enquiry into the conduct of a Brahmin woman who was charged with adultery. He announced the result to the Maharajah who put the persons found to have committed adultery out of caste. The 1st defendant is a native of the Cochin State and the proceedings also were held in that State. He does not reside within the jurisdiction of the. District Munsif's Court and the cause of action also did not arise within it. He denied the jurisdiction and there was no waiver of his right or submission to jurisdiction.2. The 2nd defendant though a native of the Cochin State, resides within the jurisdiction and it was argued by the appellant's counsel that the Court has, therefore jurisdiction over him. Mr. Sundara Iyer did not seriously dispute this proposition, but he chiefly relied upon the fact that the plaint alleges publication of the defamatory...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. L.D. Ramchandra Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.974
1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee of Madras and as such the Assignee of the property and credits of Arbuthnot & Co., insolvent-debtors against the order of the Insolvency Commissioner passed in Petition No. 181 of 1906. The preliminary objection is taken that the Official Assignee is not entitled to appeal. The respondent holds a fixed deposit receipt from Arbuthnot & Co. The amount with interest fell due on the 9th October 1906. The respondent applied to the Official Assignee for payment of the amount due to him in full on the ground that he had demanded payment from Arbuthnot A Co., on the 18th October 1903 and before that firm suspended payment. The Official Assignee refused to pay. The respondent thereupon gave a notice of motion to the Official Assignee stating that he intended to move the Court for an order that the amount due under the deposit receipt might be paid to him out of the assets of the insolvent in the hands of the Official Assignee. The Insolvency Commiss...
Kicha Reddiar Vs. Reddi Appa Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1076
1. The plaintiff obtained a decree for redemption against the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The defendants Nos. 1 an 3 appealed against the decree and the decree of the first Court was reversed and the suit dismissed. The decree for redemption directing payment of the mortgage amount to defendants Nos. 2 and 4 jointly with defendants Nos. 1 and 3 should not have been reversed in their absence. They were (sic) parties to the appeal and the Subordinate Judge should have either dismissed the appeal or made them parties. As the defendants Nos. 2 and 4 were ex parte in the first Court and are the sons of the 1st defendant, who had appealed and sufficiently represented their interests, we think it is, a fit case to make them parties. We accordingly reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court, direct the District Court to make the defendants Nos. 2 and 4 parties to the appeal and proceed to dispose of it according to law. Costs will abide the result....
In Re: Mari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.754
ORDERMiller, J.1. In this case a ground is taken that the sentence ought to have been reduced. No doubt that must be done when a sentence has been passed for an offence of which the accused is afterwards found to be not guilty. The effect of not doing so is, as has been held, to enhance the sentence passed for another offence. But here the true inference to be drawn from the sentences is that the Magistrate did not mean to pass any sentence for the offence of hurt and that being so there was nothing to reduce. I dismiss this petition....
In Re: M. Atchutha Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.734
1. We are of opinion that the words 'Local Plague Authorities in Regulation 14 (3) of the Madras Plague Regulations refer to the plague authorities of the port of disembarkation. The Port Health Officer had no power to exempt the petitioner save as provided in Regulation 14 (3), and the petitioner must be supposed to have known the law. He was rightly convicted and the petition is dismissed....
Hava Bhayi and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Doss ThoppaIn Sait and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.43
1. Against the 2nd defendant nothing is shown except that she is living with her husband in a house which is said to have belonged to the deceased, a point, however, on which the District Judge has recorded no finding. As regards defendants Nos. 1 and 3 the decree is right. It is found that they took possession of some of the property of the deceased, and this is sufficient to throw upon them the burden of proving that they did not receive so much of the property of the deceased as would satisfy the debt, vide Magaluri Garudiah v. Narayana Rungiah 3 M.k 359. This burden they did not discharge. The lower Court's decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 3 is confirmed and their appeal dismissed with costs. The personal decree against the 2nd defendant is set aside with Vakils' fee paid by heir and one-third of the other costs in this and the lower appellate Court....
Kakkal Reddi Alias Govindan and Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.156
ORDERMiller, J.1. The bond should not have been demanded under both Sections 109 and 110, Criminal Procedure Code, (vide Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 277 and 278 of 1909), and unless the Magistrate is satisfied that the two men were acting in concert, i.e., were associated in the acts charged, he, should not have held a, single enquiry. It is not clear whether in the present case a single enquiry might not have been justified; the Magistrate does not deal with the point. But on the other ground the order is illegal, and I, therefore, set it aside....
Ramaiengar and Vedantachari Minor by Next Friend, A. Rangasawmi Iyenga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1909
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ89
1.The father of the appellant in these two appeals brought a suit in forma pauperis as next friend of one of the appellants to establish his adoption and recover possession of property. The alleged adoption was found to be false, the suit was dismissed, and the father of the appellants was directed, under Section 440, Civil Procedure Code to pay the costs due to Government. Now the reason why the appellants' father was made liable for these costs was that he had been guilty of what was certainly an immoral act in bringing a suit which he must have known to be false. The liability to pay the costs was clearly imposed as a penalty for his misconduct and the debt thus incurred is tainted with immorality and the sons are not bound to pay. Again under Hindu Law, among debts which sons are not bound to pay are fines (see Mayne'S Hindu Law-, 7th edition, page 389) and in this case the liability imposed upon the appellant's father may also be regarded as in the nature of a fine. We, therefore,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »