Chennai Court March 1910 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 Vs. J.W. Irwin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.250
Miller and Munro, JJ.1. In this ease we are agreed, that the learned Commissioner was right. The claimant Irwin was not a customer of Messrs Arbuth not & Co. He sent them two cheques wherewith to purchase shares in certain rubber companies, and clearly he did not intend, to make them his bankers for the amount remitted, for he told them if they could not get all the shares he wanted at once, they should cash only one of the cheques.2. They cashed only one cheque, bought some shares and failed before completing the purchase. The uncashed cheque was returned to the claimant, and he now claims the unspent balance of the other. He is clearly entitled to it. There is nothing to suggest that the relationship of banker and customer was created at any time between the claimant and Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. They were in the position of his stock brokers for a particular transaction and his money never became theirs to use and re-pay.3. This appeal must be dismissed with costs out of the estate.Ab...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. the Society for the Propogation of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.212
Miller, J.1. This ease is on all fours with Lupprian's case Letters Patent Appeal No. 138 of 1909. The money was not paid in by the society for any special purpose. Messrs. Arbuth not and Company owed the society Rs. 5,009 and promised to buy for them Government promissory-notes but before they did so, they suspended payment.2. Here as in Luppriari's case Letters Patent Appeal No. 138 of 1909, I find nothing more than a promise to buy out of the funds of the Bank the securities which the society desired to purchase.3. I think the appeal must be allowed with :costs throughout.Munro, J.4. For the reasons given in my judgment in Lupprian's Case Letters Patent Appeal No. 138 of 1909, I agree to the proposed order.Abdur Rahim, J.5. I agree....
M. Iswardas Vs. G.D. Chandip and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.267
Wallis, J.1. The practice in England in a creditor's action for administration--where the assets prove to be sufficient for the payment of the debts in fall, as is the case, here--is to give the plaintiff costs out of the estate as between party and party only. Sae the judgment of Sterling, L.J. in In re New Zealand Midland Railway (1886) 32 Ch. D. 357, aid I do not think there are sufficient grounds for departing from that practice and giving costs out of the estate as between attorney and client. As pointed out by the Lord Justice, the Court may in a proper case make an order that the difference between the plaintiff's costs as between attorney and client and the costs allowed him out of the estate as between party and party may be ordered to be borne rateably by the whole body of creditors, who have profited by his exertion, but I cannot pass such an order without notice to the creditors whom it may affect, and I give the plaintiff leave to apply if so advised for such an order with...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. D. Rajam Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.383
Miller, J.1. This is a somewhat peculiar case. The Madras Railway Company remitted money to Messrs Arbuthnot & Co. to the credit of the claimant, Rajam Iyer. Arbuthnot & Co. informed Rajam Iyer, who was not one of their customers, that this had been . done and asked for his instructions. But before he could instruct them, they suspended payment. Now it seems to me that in this case the principle enunciated in Official Assignee of Madras v. Smith 32 M. 68 L: 5 M.L.T. 164 : 1 Ind. Cas. 712 is not applicable. The Madras Railway did not intend Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. to use the money as their Bankers and Arbuthnot & Co., it seems to me, could not possibly have done so. They were not the Bankers of the Railway Company and the money remitted was not an advance to them by the Railway Company; it was money due to and in course of remittance to a third party and Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. did not treat the money as money lodged with them as Banker. In their letter to Rajam Iyer, they suggest that ...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Mellapparan Kanoor Sarvajana Sahay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.427
Miller, J.1. In this case we do not know what were the contents of the letters which accompanied the remittances in May, July and September. But from Exhibit B 2 we find that all the remittances were held by Arbuthnot & Co. in suspense on the claimant's account. The question is whether they held them as bankers or not. I take it from the affidavit that negotiations were proceeding as to the final disposal by way of investment with Arbuthnot & Co. of all the remittances and from Exhibit A that the claimant's intention, if he could do so on his terms, was to place all the money on fixed deposit.2. There is this difference between this case and Official Assignee of Madras v. Smith 32 Ma. 68 : 1 Ind. Cas. 712 : 5 M.L.T. 164 that in that case there was no question of settling terms. The money was to be placed in fixed deposit as soon as a second remittance was received.3. But I think this makes no real difference. I cannot accept the argument for the respondent that the money was not held a...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Krishna Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad128
Miller, J.1. Krishna Bhatta had Rs. 1,500 on fixed deposit with Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. from the 17th October, 1905 to the 17th October. 1906. The conditions being that after the 17th October, 1906 no interest should be payable unless the deposit was renewed. He sent up his deposit receipt in due course for repayment of the money, but before repayment was made Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. failed, It is argued on behalf of Krishna Bhatta that from and after the 17th October, 19Q6 the money was held by Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co, in a fiduciary capacity. I am unable to find anything in the contract as disclosed by the evidence to indicate that the relation of banker and customer came to an end on the 17th October, 1906. As I understand it after that date the money remained as a deposit, but bearing no interest till renewal, the reason being that the bankers were not willing to pay interest at 5 per cent, on loans repayable by them on demand, though they would do so on loans for a fixed term. And ...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Lupprian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR34Mad121
1. The insolvency jurisdiction is conferred upon She-High Court by Section 18 of the Letters Patent and' that-section gives the High Courts the power to hear an appeal from the Commissioner in Insolvency. Section 15 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal to the High Court from the judgment of two Judges of the High Court who differ in opinion. The appeal from the Commissioner is hoard by the High Court and (leaving out of consideration Section 73-of the Indian Insolvency Act) Section 15 of the Letters Patent applies to the judgment in it unless there is something in some other section of the Letters Patent which prevents its application. Section 18 confers the power to hear the appeal, the power that is to say which is given by Section 73, but it does not of itself deny the right of further appeal, and there is thus nothing in the Letters Patent to prevent the application of Section 15. But Section 73 of the Indian Insolvency Act provides that the order made by the Court of Appea...
Naganada Iyer Alias Eswarappier Vs. Krishnamurti Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)20MLJ535
Ahdur Rahim, J.1.This appeal is by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 61 of 1903, against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam dismissing the suit. One of the grounds on which the learned Judge proceeded was that the present suit was not maintainable by reason of Original Suit No. 7 of 1892, instituted by the plaintiff against one Srinivasa Iyer, predecessor-in-title of the present defendants having been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam on the 1st November 1892. He holds that the previous suit was disposed of under Sections 157 and 102, Civil Procedure Code of 1882, and the bar arises by reason of Section 103, Civil Procedure Code of 1882. But the learned vakil for the 74th defendant urges that the first suit was decided under Section 158 of the Code, and the present suit is, therefore, barred on the ground of res judicata. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the dismissal of the previous suit was under Section 102, as held by the Court below...
Naganada Aiyar Alias Eswarapier Vs. Krishnamurti Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR34Mad97
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 61 of 1903 against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam dismissing the suit. One of the grounds, on which the learned Judge proceeded was that the present suit was not maintainable by reason of Original Suit No. 7 of 1892, instituted by the plaintiff against one Srinivasa Aiyar, predecessor in title of the present defendants, having been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam on the 1st November, 1892. He holds that the previous suit was disposed of under Sections 157 and 102, Civil Procedure Code of 1882, and the bar arises by reason of Section 103, Civil Procedure Code of 1882. But the learned vakil for the 74th defendant urges that the first suit was decided under Section 158 of the Code, and the present suit is, therefore, barred on the ground of res judicata. The contention on behalf the appellant is that the dismissal of the previous suit was under Section 102, as held by the Court belo...
M. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Nataraja Thambiran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.751
1. We are unable to take the view of the learned Judge that the plaintiff's evidence does not establish a prima facet case for relief. We think that the plaintiff's evidence establishes a prima facie case for relief and that the learned Judge ought to have heard any evidence which the defendant was in a position to adduce and to have dealt with the case after hearing that evidence. We must, accordingly, set aside the decree of the learned Judge and send back the case for trial. In our opinion, the portion of the decree in the suit of 1869 which orders that the plaintiff (in that suit) and his successors should appoint any future Deputy from the male descendants of the defendant (in that suit), as we read the decree, was an order by consent. This being so, it does not have the effect of altering the terms of trust as created in 1787. See Ramasawmi Naick v. Ramasami Chetti 30 M. 255 : 2 M.L.T. 167 : 17 M.L.J. 201. As regards any scheme which the learned Judge may think fit to settle, it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »