Chennai Court August 1916 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 South Indian Mills Company Ltd. by Its Managing Director, T. Srima ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.617
1. The appeal against Order No. 266 of 1915 is against an order appointing an Official Liquidator for the winding up of a Company. Appeal against Order No, 265 of 1915 is against the lower Court's order refusing a re-hearing of there appointment proceedings. Both the appeals purport to be preferred by the Company through its Managing Director. There is a preliminary objection to them that the Company, having been orderded to be wound up and the winding up order having been confirmed by this Court neither the Company nor its Director can prefer such appeals.2. The objection is in our opinion valid Section 141 of Act VI of 1882 under which the proceedings took place provides that after an order for winding up has been made until an Official Liquidator has been appointed all the property of the Company shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Court Section 137 provides that the winding up order shall be deemed to be notice of discharge to the servants of the Company except (what is not...
V.P.L.R.M. Palaniappa Chetty Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.787
Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. Mr. Justice Bake well having dismissed the appellant's application to revoke an adjudication order made against him and his father on 28th January 1915 so far as it affects the appellant, this appeal is against that order. The petition for adjudication was presented by certain creditors, Messrs. Wilson and Co., on 27th January 1915, alleging that both the father and the son were merchants carrying on business in the town of Madras, that they used to indent for piece-goods through the petitioners and that between April 1910 and July 1913 they ordered for and obtained delivery of goods for the value of which they executed promissory notes on which the amount due with interest amounted to Rs. 18,505-15-1. The alleged acts of insolvency are said to have been committed by the appellant and his father in December 1914 and January 1915. The plaintiff attained majority in April 1914 and was thus a minor on the dates of the promissory notes. The question for deci...
Bhavani Alias Rukmani Amma Vs. Anantha Kamthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.789; (1916)31MLJ556
Oldfield, J.1. The necessary facts are as follows : Plaintiff's husband, now deceased, started a Kuri fund and in 1892 executed Ex. R. to the members, pledging property as security for the amounts, which would be payable to them. On his death plaintiff succeeded to his estate and her father, as her guardian, in 1893 took steps to transfer the management of the fund to 1st defendant by a Power of Attorney and obtained from him and his brothers an indemnity bond Ex. B. with the plaint property as security for an amount not exceeding Rs. 2,500 against any damage resulting to plaintiff and her property including that bound by Ex. R. Two members of the fund afterwards obtained decrees on Ex. R. against plaintiff, 1st defendant being a party; and (neither decreeholder being a party to the other's decree) both in succession brought the property to sale, the purchasers being different individuals. Plaintiff has now sued 1st defendant and others representing the other executants of Ex. B. to re...
In Re: T.S. Krishnamurthi Ayyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.801
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. At first sight, the committal order of the Magistrate reads as if he intended that all the six charges mentioned by him, namely, three of criminal breach of trust and three of falsification of accounts--all within a year--should be tried at one and the same trial by the Sessions Judge. Of course, if such a trial takes place before the Sessions Judge, namely, a trial upon all the six charges at one and the same trial, certainly it would be opposed to sec-ions 222 and 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That is the view taken in all the High Courts. See Kasi Viswanathan v. Emperor 5 Cr. L.J. 341 : 2 M.L.T. 177; Raman Behary Das v. Emperor 22 Ind. Cas. 729 : 18 C.W.N. 1152 and Emperor v. Mata Prasad (1908) A.W.N. 152 : 5 A.L.J. 450 : 8 Cri. L.J. 4. I have had the advantage of looking into the charges framed by the Magistrate and I find that he has framed three distinct charges, each one containing a case of criminal breach of trust and one of falsification of ac...
Madappa Goundan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1916
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.403
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Mr. Madhavan Nair has dissected the judgment of the Magistrate with great skill and I may any that portions of too judgment lend themselves to hostile at the hands of an able Advocate; out mere is no question that the Magistrate has found that the letter in question was written prima facie with a view to injure the second persecuting witness and that its effect baa been to lower the Bret prosecution witness in the estimation of his subordinates and tie public. A reading of the letter) leaves no reamer of doubt in my mind upon that question. It says in ere portion of it that the Village Munsif is a very rich man and that he has gained over the Forest Officers to his side and has been grazing goats in the reserve. This is followed by the sentence: 'If the Cauvery Range Officer knows of the matter (that is the inquiry), he will inform the guards and will give intimation to the Village Munsif and others.' There ran be no doubt that lie implication intended in the...
Kazhungum Parambath Parkum Puthiarakkal Etappara Kunhi Kathiah Vs. Kun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.91
1. The 4th and the 5th defendants were admittedly the co-owners of the Taragu right in the land. The 1st defendant was the tenant under the 4th defendant. Plaintiff claimed as the assignee of the rights under a melcharth granted by the 4th defendant to the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant surrendered her rights to the 5th defendant under Exhibit III and the 2nd defendant was holding as lessee under the 5th defendant. The suit was for recovery of the property and for arrears of rent; it was dismissed on the finding that the melcharth was not valid. On appeal the Subordinate Judge, without displacing the finding as to the invalidity of the melcharth, which is the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, has given a decree to him for three years' arrears of rent not only against the 1st and 2nd defendants but also against the 5th defendant, the co-owner. The 5th defendant appeals to us but not the other defendants. The claim against the 5th defendant is rested before us on the ground of his b...
Kali Shettathi and anr. Vs. Shama Rau and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.229
1. The respondent are desree-holdars whose application for execution was originally dismissed for default. They obtained its restoration under Order IX, Rule 9, of the Coda of Civil Procedure, by presenting Execution Application No 86 of 1913. 2. The appellants, the judgment-debtors, then applied to the District Munsif in Execution Application No. 39 of 19 3 to review his order of restoration, on the ground that if had been passed without notice to them. He granted a review and set aside his order of restoration. 3. Respondents then in Execution Application No, 52 of 1913 applied for a review of the original order dismissing the execution petition for default. The District Munsif granted a review and set aside the dismissal in the order, which is the subject of the present proceedings. The District Judge dismissed the appellants' appeal with reference to Order XLIII, Rule 1 (u) and Order XLVII, Rule (7), of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. We have before us an appeal and a revision peti...
Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole, Estate Vs. G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.394
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The question raised in revision is whether the suit is cognizable by a Revenue Court or by a Civil Court. The District Munsif before whom this and a number of connected suits were tried was of opinion that the matter came within the jurisdiction of the Deputy-Collector. There was an appeal against that Mr. Nagabhushanam has preferred this civil revision petition to this Court against the appellate order. He contends that the proper tribunal is the Civil Court and not the Revenue Court.2. One circumstance may be mentioned which, to my mind, is practically conclusive of this matter, and it is this. In the connected suits disposed of along with this by the Munsif there was a civil revision, petition to this Court, No. 853 of 1910, and others. In those petitions Mr. Justice Phillips was of opinion that the order of the District Munsif was right and that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction. That decision was taken up in appeal to two Judges of this Court in Letters Pa...
Naranappa Alias Buchanna and ors. Vs. Venkataraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.202
Spencer, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies as the case is of a small cause nature.2. Though the case was tried on the regular side, as it involved a question of title, it is not the less a suit of small cause nature. See Muthukaruppan v. Sellan 15 M.k 98.3. An objection striking at the root of the jurisdiction of the lower Courts has, however, been taken by the appellants' Pleader. He argues that the suit should have been filed in a Revenue Court to obtain damages under Section 213 of the Madras Estates Land Act, This section provides for suits being filed for damages before the Collector by persons deeming themselves aggrieved by proceedings taken under colour of this Act or by neglect or breach of any of its provisions.4. This. is not a case of anything being dones under the colour of the Madras Estates Land Act, nor do I consider that any provision of the Act can be considered to have been broken by the cutting of trees, when Section 12 merely recognis...
In Re: Gokavarapu Perayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.866
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I cannot help saying that in this case, the Magistrate has misunderstood his functions. There was a pledge by the accused to the complainant of certain jewels in 1915. Thereupon a suit was brought by the complainant against the accused for payment of the pledge money. A decree was obtained and after the decree, an arrangement evidenced by Exhibits 1 and II was come to between the parties, to the effect that the jewels pledged with the complainant should be delivered to the accused. The allegation now is that after the date of the adjustment the accused had undertaken to sell these jewels and pay the sale-proceeds to the complainant in discharge of his decree debt. The moment that Exhibits I and II were put in to prove that there had been an adjustment of the claim between the complainant and the accused, the case ought to have been thrown out. Instead of that, the Magistrate launches into an enquiry whether Exhibits I and II represent the real transaction bet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »