Chennai Court July 1915 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.
Venkataramnjulu Naidu and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.353
Oldfield, J.1. On the first point dealt with by the learned Judge, this Court's power to revise the decisions oil the Presidency Small Cause Court, I follow the Calcutta cases, Haladhar Maiti v. Choytonna Maiti 7 W.N. 547, Sarat Chandra Singh v. Brojolal Mukerjee 30 C.k 986; Ramdin Bania v. Sew Baksh Singh 14 C.W.N. 806 in preference to Ismailji Ibrahimji Nagree v. Macleod 8 Bom. L.R. 969 decided in Bombay, the former moreover being in accordance with the practice in this Presidency. The learned Judge's decision in favour of the existence of this Court's powers of revision must be sustained.2. The question is then whether their exercise was justified in the case before him, one of a decree for ejectment under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, obtained on a finding as to the validity of the notice given, which the learned Judge held to be and which may For the present purpose be treated as being mistaken in law. It is contended that this decree can be revised because it was...
Lingam Veeraraghava Row and anr. Vs. Mallapragada Gurunadha Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.246
1. We follow Balasubramania Chetti v. Swarnammal 21 Ind. Cas. 32 : 25 M.L.J. 367 with the reasoning in which we respectfully concur, in preference to Safdar Ali v. Kishun Lal 7 Ind. Cas. 241. The decision in the latter, moreover, appears to be irreconcilable with that of Hari Charan Ghosh v. Manmatha Nath Sen 18 C.W.N. 343. The fact, therefore, that petitioner applied for execution in 1911 without making his present claim for mesne profits is not material. The appeal against order is dismissed with costs....
The South Indian Mills Co. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, T. Srim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1218; 30Ind.Cas.386
1. In this case Ayling and Hannay, JJ., ordered the appeal against the winding-up order to be dismissed unless a scheme for the payment of creditors was put forward in six weeks' time. This was not done, but when the case came on in March of this year before Ay ling and Tyabji, JJ., the 3rd respondent consented to the case being adjourned to allow of meeting of creditors and share-holders to approve a scheme. The meetings were held and a scheme approved, which came on for approval under Section 203 of the Companies Act of 1882 before this Court, before which the appeal against the winding-up order is pending. On the materials before us we are not satisfied that the scheme was a bona fide or workable one, and we adjourned the case till after the vacation to enable the appellants to show that they were in a position to finance the scheme proposed by them. After a careful consideration of the case we have come to the conclusion that the scheme should not be approved. The mills were acquir...
Ramaswami Mudaliar Vs. Muthuswami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1121; 30Ind.Cas.481
1. The second defendant is no doubt described in the body of the suit note as the guardian of the 1st defendant, who was at its date a minor; and the necessity for borrowing is stated in it as arising from the 1st defendant's father's debt. We are not, however, prepared to treat these facts alone as sufficient to indicate that 2nd defendant signed as 1st defendant's guardian or did not intend to incur personal liability. We must, therefore, hold that 1st defendant is not liable on the note.2. It is urged in the alternative that he is liable on the original debt, for which the note was substituted. But that was not the case relied on in the plaint, nor has it been shown how plaintiff, an assignee of the pro-note alone, could rely on it, or how a suit on the debt could be in time.3. In these circumstances, the appeal against order must be allowed, the lower Appellate Court's order being set aside and the District Munsif's decree restored. Plaintiff will pay 1st defendant's costs througho...
Krishnaswami Aiyar Vs. T.A. Rangaswami Nayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1078; 30Ind.Cas.517
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The lower Court does not find that there was service of the previous notice calling upon the surety to show cause why his security amount should not he utilised for payment to the judgment-creditor. Without a finding that the conditions of the bond had not been complied with and without a finding that the service was proper, the lower Court was not entitled to pay the surety's money to the judgment-creditor. I reverse the order of the lower Court and remand the petition for inquiry according to law in the light of the above observations. Costs will be provided for in the revised order....
In Re: Para Thurinji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad647(1); 30Ind.Cas.258
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The 7th to 9th defendants produced the usufructuary mortgage, Exhibit I. There was no endorsement of discharge on it. The Courts below give weight to this piece of evidence, but point out that having regard to the fact that the person through whom the money' was said to have been paid was not examined, this evidence is not enough to discharge the burden which lay on the defendants. Mr. Visvanadha Aiyar argues that the burden is on the plaintiff, having regard to illustration (i) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. That section refers to presumptions that may be raised. It does not follow that such presumptions would shift the onus of proof. The presumption is a piece of evidence in favour of the party. I do not think that the decision of Mohammad Mehdi Hasan Khan v. Mandir Das 17 Ind. Cas. 396: 14 Bom. L.R. 1073 : 10 A.L.J. 373supports the learned Vakil. In that case, the bond contained an endorsement of discharge. The production of the document coupled with the e...
Ramayanam Jogamma Vs. Enamandra Ramalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad774(1)
1. The appellant contends that the doctrine of relief against the enforcement of a penal clause is inapplicable in the case of contracts other than those between landlord and tenant. This is negatived by the authority of Bheema Venkatramana v. Bommini Gurappa 28 Ind. Cas. 970.Next it is urged that the District Judge's use of his discretion to grant relief was unjustifiable. We do not agree. Time was not, in our opinion, of the essence of the contract; and the person substantially in fault was in fact the appellant.3. The appeal against appellate order fails and is dismissed with costs....
Sellam Iyengar Vs. PA. VA. Du. Vee Veerappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad578(2); 30Ind.Cas.522
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff agreed to grant a lease of a house site to the 1st defendant in July 1906. The latter sub-let portions of the site to the 2nd and 3rd defendants and directed them to pay the plaintiff Rs. 1-12-0 and 1-8-0 a month respectively. Owing to the failure of the 1st defendant to carry out the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 92 of 1911 on the file of the Manamadura District Munsif for the execution of the lease-deed and for arrears of rent. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded as parties as they were in possession. One of the issues raised in that suit was, which defendant is liable for what portion of the rent?' The Munsif decreed that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in this suit, who wore defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in the former suit, were liable to pay Rs. 1-12 and Rs. 1-8-0 respectively and passed a decree to that effect.2. The present suit is solely for arrears of rent and has, therefore, been filed in the Small Cause Side of th...
Kayarohana Chettiar Vs. Nagalinga Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.493
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiff entrusted his bundle, containing Rs. 430, to the 1st defendant to be kept whilst the two went to a godown ten feet distant for a short time. The 1st defendant put it in an unlocked box, in which he had money of his own. When the two went away the 1st defendant's nephew was in the shop, though he was not actually asked to mind it. On the return of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant the money was gone. The Subordinate Judge held that the 1st defendant was not negligent and dismissed the plaintiff's Small Cause suit. A learned Judge of this Court revised this decision, passing the decree for the plaintiff which is before us on appeal. The facts stated above are all that are material, except perhaps what the learned Judge and the Subordinate Judge have not referred to, though they doubtless had it in mind, that there is no allegation in the plaintiff's evidence of his having told the 1st defendant anything regarding the amount of the money entrusted.2. It is, ...
Subbanarayana Aiyar Vs. Maya thevan Alias Mayandi thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad550(1); 30Ind.Cas.263
1. It is argued that the provisions in the compromise petition were made part oft eh decree and are, therefore, executable with it. But the decree, through it makes executable its terms only so far as they relate to the suit against defendant?. And we cannot find that the terms 7 and 8 relate to it either directly or, as the District Munsif held, indirectly as indicating a quid pro quo, on which the settlement of the plaint claim was based. In these circumstances we agree with the learned District Judge and dismiss the appeal against appellate order with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »