Chennai Court February 1912 Judgments
In Re: Mr. G. Krishnasawmi Aiyar, a Vakil of the High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ276
ORDER1. In this matter a vakil of this court has been called on to show cause why he should not be suspended or removed from practice by reason of his conduct in connection with S.A. No. 1045 of 1907 in which he was retained for the appellant. Notice was issued to the vakil in pursuance of an order made by this court with reference to the finding in the judgment in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 498 of 1910.2. The application is made by the Advocate-General, and the question we have to consider is whether reasonable cause, within the weaning of Section 10 of the Letters Patent, has been shown for removal or suspension of the vakil.3. On the hearing of the application Mr. Rangachariar and Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar appeared for the vakil. We have considered the judgment of this court in C.M.P. No. 498 of 1910. Two affidavits have been relied upon by the vakil, one in support of the application to restore the second appeal dated 14th February 1910 and another dated 6th December 1911. Th...
Tag this Judgment!The Sessions Judge of Kistna Vs. Gudru Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.204
ORDER1. We agree with the Sessions Judge that in this case, where the girl who is said to have committed bigamy has a husband, who is of age, and a father, he and not the father of the girl is the person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 198, Criminal Procedure Code, and, as such, entitled to institute a complaint under Section 494, Indian Penal Code, against the girl's mother,2. We, accordingly, quash the commitment....
Tag this Judgment!Seshagiri Row Vs. Vajra Velayudan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ377
1. The facts of this case are quite similar to those in Mohidin Rowthen v. Nallaperumal Pillai : (1911)21MLJ1000 and according to the decision in that case the suit is clearly barred ; but itis contended that an argument of importance was not submitted to the court in that case, which would have materially influeuced the judgment. That argument is that when a plaint returned for presentation to the proper court on the ground of absence of jurisdiction in the court to which it was originally presented is re-presented to the proper court, the suit itself must be regarded as a continuation of the infructuous suit in the wrong court This argument cannot be upheld. Proceedings instituted without jurisdictiou cannot be deemed as legally valid and capable of being continued in another court. In the case in Takhuroodeen Mahomed Eshan Chowdry v. Kurim Bux Chowdry and Ors. (1865) 3 W.R.C.R. 20 cited for the appellant, the suit was regarded as transferred from one court to another. In such a case...
Tag this Judgment!Muthayamanigaran Vs. Lakku Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: (1912)22MLJ413
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question raised in this petition is as to the date with reference to which damages should be assessed in an action for breach of contract. The facts are these : On the 12th May 1909, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a contract for the delivery by the defendant of 6 candies of cotton at an agreed rate within 60 days of the date of the contract. The defendant failed to deliver within 60 days which expired on or about the 12th of July. On the 4th of September the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the defendant in which they referred to the agreement and intimated that if the defendant failed to deliver the cotton within one week after the date of the letter he would be liable for the loss that might befall the plaintiffs according to the market rate at the date of letter. The defendant took no notice of this letter. On the 3rd October the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant another letter in which they referred to their previous communication and gave notice...
Tag this Judgment!Mutthaya Maniagaran Vs. Lekku Reddiar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad412
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The question raised on this petition is as to the date with, reference to which damages should he assessed in an action for breach of contract. The facts are these. On the 12th of May 1909; the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a contract for the delivery by the defendant of 6 candies of cotton at an agreed rate within 60 days of the date of the contract. The defendant failed to deliver within the 60 days which expired on or about the 12th of July. On the 4th of September the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the defendant in which they referred to the agreement and intimated that if the defendant failed to deliver the cotton within one week after the date of the letter he would be liable for the lows that might befall the plaintiffs' according to the market rate at the date of the letter. The defendant took no notice of this letter. On the 3rd October the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant another letter in which they referred to their previous comm...
Tag this Judgment!Seshagiri Row Vs. Vajra Velayudam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR36Mad482
1.The facts of this case are quite similar to those in Mohidin Rowthen v. Nallaperumal Pillai : (1911)21MLJ1000 , and according to the decision in that case the suit is clearly barred; but it is contended that an argument of importance was not submitted to the court in that case, which would have materially influenced the judgment. That argument is that when a plaint returned for presentation to the proper court on the ground of absence of jurisdiction in the court to which it was originally presented is represented to the proper court, the suit itself must be regarded as a continuation of the infructuous suit in the wrong Court. This argument cannot be upheld. Proceedings instituted without jurisdiction cannot be deemed to be legally. valid so as to be capable of being continued in another court. In the case in Takuroodeen Mahomed Eshan Chowdry v. Kurimbux Chowdry (1865) 3 W.B. 20 cited for the appellant the suit was regarded as transferred from one court to another. In such a case of...
Tag this Judgment!Muthaya Manigaran Vs. Lakku Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.255
Arnold White, C.J.1. The question raised on this petition is as to the date with reference to which damages should be assessed in an action for breach of contract. The facts are these: on the 12th of May 1909, the plaintiffs and (he defendant entered into a contract for the delivery by the defendant of 6 candies of cotton at an agreed rate within 60 days of the date of the contract. The defendant failed to deliver within the 60 days, which expired on or about the 12th of July. On the 4th of September, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the defendant in which they referred to the agreement and intimated that if the defendant failed to deliver the cotton within one week after the date of this letter, he would be liable for the loss that might befall the plaintiffs according to the market-rate at the date of the letter. The defendant took no notice of this letter. On the 3rd October, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant another letter in which they referred to their previous communication ...
Tag this Judgment!Anudala Subramiah Vs. Kandasubba Reddi Minor by Adoptive Mother and Ne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.213
1. The question argued in this second appeal is, whether the suit for sale was barred against the 2nd defendant with regard to the 9th instalment when he was made a party to the suit. The right to sale is based by the plaintiff on the compromise-decree, Exhibit B. The lower Appellate Court held that under that document, plaintiff had a mortgage-right over the property in question. It is contended that it created only, a charge. Exhibit B states that the property should remain under aiyaka for the debt in question. It is not denied' that the word aiyaka may mean either a mortgage or a charge. It is also conceded that, prior to the institution of the suit which terminated in the compromise, the plaintiff had a mortgage over the property. We think that the proper construction of Exhibit B, in the circumstances, is that the property should continue to be under mortgage for the debt. It is next argued that Exhihit B being a decree of, Court, could ornate only a charge and not a mortgage whi...
Tag this Judgment!Busireddi Pedda Chinnakka Vs. Busireddi Chinna Chumrekka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.120
1. The suit is for the cancellation of a deed of settlement executed by plaintiff in defendant's favour, whereby she gave defendant 1/3 rd of her husband's lands. The plaint sets up coercion and also alleges that defendant failed to return certain jewels which she promised, at the time of the agreement, to give back to plaintiff, but it does not allege that it was agreed that the return of the jewels should be a condition precedent to the deed having legal operation. The District Judge does not find that any such condition was agreed to between the parties. He says that as the defendant failed to return the jewels, the settlement became unenforceable on account of failure of consideration. He is entirely mistaken in so holding. If in consideration of the conveyance the defendant agreed to return the jewels, the plaintiff was entitled to enforce their return. The failure to pay the consideration for a conveyance would not defeat the conveyance except where there is an agreement that it ...
Tag this Judgment!Andiappa Pillay by His Authorised Agent, Senthiavelu Pillay Vs. Muthuk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.140
Ralph Benson, J.1. The substantial question argued in this second appeal is whether the District Judge was right in allowing fresh evidence to be adduced at the hearing of the appeal.2. It is contended for the appellant that the District Judge was wrong in so doing and that his procedure was not in accordance with Section 568 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act XIV of 1882, as explained by the Privy Council in the case of Kessowji Issur v. Great Indian Peninsular Railway Company 31 B.K 381 : 11 C.W.N. 721 : 6 C.L.J. 5 : 4 A.L.J. 461 : 2 M.L.T. 435 : 9 Bow. L.R. 671 : 17 M.L.J. 347.3. I am unable to accept this contention. The circumstances under which the additional evidence in that case was admitted were wholly different from the circumstances in the present case. In the present case, the District Judge, after hearing the arguments by the Pleaders on both sides, observed that the District Munsif had not sufficiently considered the olugu account (Exhibit 1), that he had, in fact, misun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »