Chennai Court April 1912 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.
In Re: Muthusami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad110
ORDER1. The question for decision in the revisiou petition is whether a defamatory statement made by one person regarding another in a complaint presented by the former against the latter is absolutely privileged. In In re Venkata Reddi I.L.R. (1913) Mad. 216 a Full Bench of this Court has expressed the opinion that neither party, wit-ness Counsel, nor Judge can be held to be liable for defamation on account of words spoken or written in any proceeding before a court recognised by law and that such statements must be regarded as absolutely privileged. The learned Chief Justice refers in the course of his judgment to the decision in Golap Jan Bholanath Khettry (1911) 38 Calc. 880, where it was held that statements made in a complaint to a magistrate were protected by absolute privilege. The same view was held by the Queen's Bench Division in Lilley v. Roney (1892) L.J. 61 Q.B.727. The defamation in that case was contained in a letter of complaint addressed to the Eegistrar of the Incorp...
i. Nagiah Vs. A. Venkatarama Sastrulu and Seven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad387
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Lower Courts refusing specific performance of a contract of sale entered into by the first defendant. The suit is brought against the first defendant who is the managing member of the family and against defendants Nos. 2 to 4, his major sons, and defendants Nos. 5 to 8, his minor sons, who appear by their guardian the first defendant. The Lower Courts have both found that this contract is not binding on defendants Nos. 2 to 8, and the question which we have to decide is whether specific performance should in these circumstances be granted or not.2. We have been referred to a decision in Kosuri Ramaraju v. Ivalury Ramalingam I.L.R. (1903) Mad. 74 in which it was decided without specific reference to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act that the proper course in such cases as this would be to give a decree for specific performance of the whole contract against the first defendant leaving it to be settled in future litigation what passed ...
Muthusawmi Naidu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.757
ORDER1. The question for decision in the revision petition is, whether a defamatory statement made by one parson regarding another in a complaint presanted by the former against the latter is absolutely privileged.2. In Potaraju Venkata Reldy v. Emperor (1912) 1 M.W.N. 476 : 13 Cri. L.J. 275 a Fall Bench of this Court has expressed the opinion that neither party, witness, Counsel, nor Judge can be held to be liable for defamation on account of words spoken or written in any proceeding before a Court recognised by law, and that such statement must be regarded as absolutely privileged. The learned Chief Justice refers in the course of his judgment to the decision in Golap Jan v. Bholanath Khetry 15 C.W.N. 917 where it was held that statements made in a complaint to a Magistrate were protected by absolute privilege. The same view was held by the Queen's Bench Division in Lilley v. Ronsy 61 L.J.Q.B. 727. The defamation in that case was contained in a letter of complaint addressed to the Re...
Srinivasa Pillay Vs. Sathayappa Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.759
ORDERSankaran Nair, J.1. The Sab-Divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 145, Clause 4, of the Criminal Procedure Code, attaching certain land together with the crops harvested and rents received since the beginning of the disturbance.' These petitions are filed to set aside that order. It is first argued that the dispute is one between trustees of the same temple, and, therefore, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. As to this, it is enough to say that the possession and the right to such possession of the lessee, who is the petitioner before this Court, is also involved, and that the two trustees do not concede that the other trustee was or is in possession. It may be that, on inquiry, the facts found may not justify any interference on the part of the Magistrate, but I see no reason to interfere with the order at this stage on that ground.2. The next question argued is, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass any order with reference to crops...
Annavarapu Nancharamma and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.231
1. The appeal relates only to one instalment of the debt due. The appellant's Vakil says it may be taken to mean the last or 8th instalment. On the construction of the document A, we are of opinion that the appellant's contention is well founded. There is no provision in the document that, in default of payment of any of the instalments, the whole debt shall become due. When default is committed, the creditor is entitled to sell the property and apply the proceeds of the sale to the balance of the debt due. We are of opinion that the word 'due' in the context means payable. The whole debt was not due in this case at the same time. This is made clear by the next provision, that, if the sale does not realize what is due to the creditor, the debtor's other properties might be proceeded against for the balance then due. We must, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the decree of the lower-Court by dismissing the suit so far as it relates to the last instalment with proportionate costs th...
Juturi Nagiah Vs. Ariparala Vencatrama Sastrulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.623
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the lower Courts refusing specific performance of a contract of sale entered into by the 1st defendant, who is the managing member of the family and against defendants Nos. 2 to 4, his major sons, and defendants Nos. 5 to 8, his minor sons, who appear by their guardian, the 1st defendant. The lower Courts have both found that this contract is not binding on defendants Nos. 2 to 8 and the question which we have to decide is, whether specific performance should in these circumstances be granted or not.2. We have been referred to a decision in Kosuri Ramaraju v. Ivalury Ramalingam 26 M.P 74 : 12 M.L.J. 400 in which it was decided, without specific reference to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, that the proper course in such pases as this would be to give a decree for specific performance of the whole of the contract against the 1st defendant leaving it to be settled in future litigation what passed under the conveyance.3. Another case to ...
Krishnama Naiken Vs. Kandasami Gounden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ108
1. The lower appellate court has not found the facts necessary to entitle the decree-holder to re-open the execution proceedings. Section 315 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that it should be found that the judgment debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold at the time of the sale. There is no such finding recorded by the lower appellate court. The judgment debtor did not admit that he had no saleable interest in Survey Nos. 443 and 460. He asserted the contrary in his memorandum of appeal to the lower appellate court. We must therefore ask the lower appellate court to submit a finding on the question whether the judgment-debtor had a saleable interest in Survey Nos. 443 and 460 on the date of the auction sale. Fresh evidence relating to this question may be admitted. The finding should be submitted within two months after the reopening of the Court after the recess. Seven days will be allowed for filing objection.2. In compiance with the order containded in the abov...
Arbuthnot and Co. in Sovent Debtors Represented by the Official Assign ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)23MLJ221
1. A preliminary objection has been raised that the appeal is out of time as the order was made on the 8th April 1909 and the appeal was not filed within one calendar month as required by Section 73 of the Indian Insolvency Act, 1848. The vacation in that year began at the end of April and the appeal was filed on the re-opening day of July. As regards this point we are not prepared to differ from Aruvamudu Ayyangar v. Samiappa I.L.R. (1897) M. 385 Sambasiva Achari v. Ramaswami Reddi I.L.R. (1898) M. 179 and Hajee Ismail Sail v. The Trustees of the Harbour, Madras I.L.R. (1900) M. 389 a series of rulings which appear to have been generally accepted and acted on for a period of some years.2. We therefore hold the appeal is in time.3. The appeal relates to the sum of Rs. 1000 which the petitioner as Head Godown keeper was required to deposit with Messrs. Arbuthnot and Co., as security on his appointment as Head Godown keeper and which he paid in on 18th April 1906. In his affidavit he mer...
Arbuthnot and Co., Insolvent Debtors,represented by the Official Assig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.579
1. A preliminary objection has been taken that the appeal is out of time as the order was made on the 8th April 1809 and the appeal was not filed within one calendar month as required by Section 73 of the Indian Insolvency Act, 1848. The vacation in that year began at the end of April, and the appeal was filed on the reopening day in July. As regards this point, we are not prepared to differ from Aravamudu Iyyangar v. Samiyappa Nadan 21 M.k 385 Sambasiva Chari v. Ramasami Reddi 22 M.k 179 and Haji Ismail Sait v. The Trustees of the Harhour Madras 23 M.k 289 a series of rulings which appear to have been generally accepted and acted on for a period of some years.2. We, therefore, hold the appeal is in time. The appeal relates to the sum of Rs. 1,000 which the petitioner, as Head Godown-Keeper, was required to deposit with Messrs. Arbuth-not and Co., as security on his appointment as Head Godown-keeper and which he paid in or. 18th April 19C6. In his affidavit he merely states it was take...
Krishnamma Naicken Vs. Kandasami Gounden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.109
1. The lower Appellate Court has not found the facts necessary to entitle the decree-holder to re-open the execution proceedings. Section 315 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that it should be found that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold at the time of the sale. There is no such finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court. The judgment-debtor did not admit that he had no saleable interest in Survey Nos. 443 and 460. He asserted the contrary in his memorandum of appeal to the lower Appellate Court. We must, therefore, ask the lower Appellate Court to submit a finding on the question whether the judgment-debtor had a saleable interest in Survey Nos. 443 and 430 on the date of the auction-sale. Fresh evidence relating to this question may be admitted. The finding should be submitted within two months after the re-opening of the Court after the recess. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections.2. In compliance with the above judgment, the Dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »