Chennai Court July 1917 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.
Kolta Tholasingam Chetty Vs. G. Vedachalla Aiyah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.544
John Wallis, C. J.1. In this case a trustee was ordered to be removed by Mr. Justice Bakewell and an account was directed to be taken against him. That decision was confirmed on appeal and the case went to the learned Official Referee. But the learned Official Referee was of opinion that certain questions of fact involved should be decided by the Court itself: and the case, therefore, came before Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter sitting on the original side and we have now to deal with an appeal from his decision.2. The question argued before us on appeal relates to item No. 11, certain house property to which the trust became entitled in the time of the former trustee, some ten years before the accession to the office of trustee of the defendant in this suit, so that the defendant had two years in which he could have taken steps for recovery of the property. It is stated by the learned Judge, and the case proceeds upon that basis, that neither the present defendant nor his predecessor did a...
Kanakasundaram Pillai Vs. Somasundaram Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1917
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ375
1. The petitioner obtained a preliminary mortgage decree for the sale of certain property and an application was then made for the passing of the final decree. At the hearing of this application the respondent did not appear and the final decree was passed in his absence. Subsequently he made an application under Order IX Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code to set aside the final decree which he alleged was passed ex parte. The District Munsif acceded to that application and the petitioner now has applied to us in revision to set aside the order, firstly, on the ground that it is not a case to which Order IX Rule 13 applies.2. The point raised seems to be one of first impression and its decision depends on the interpretation of C. IX Rule 13. It says, ' In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant he may apply to the court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside.' Now there is nothing in the language of that rule which compels us to limit the word '...
Chidambaram Pillai and ors. Vs. Veerappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.865
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the appellants. The suit was brought upon two promissory notes, Exhibits D and E, executed by one Venkatachallam Pillai on the 9th October 1903 for Rs. 1,490, and on the 3rd October 1903 for Rs. 725 respectively. This Venkatachallam Pillai was the 5th defendant in the case, His lagal representatives (defendants Nos. 6 to 9; were brought on the record but they were exonerated by the judgment of the Court of first instance. They were not made parties either in the lower Appellate Court or in the second appeal to this Court. The liability of the executant, Venkatachallam Pillai, and his heirs need not, therefore, be directly dealt with in this second appeal.2. The only question remaining in the suit is, therefore, whether the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are liable on those two promissory notes, Exhibits D and E, executed by Venkatachallam Pillai. The sacoad promissory note, Exhibit H), was executed mainly for the interest due for three years ...
Damodara Shanabhaga Vs. Subraya Pai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad387; 43Ind.Cas.217; (1917)33MLJ509
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The plaintiff's assignor, Lakshmana Kamthi, and the defendant were partners in trade. The two partners borrowed money from a stranger for the partnership purposes. A decree was passed against both on 2-12-1912 (See Exhibit VI). The plaintiff's assignor alone was arrested and he paid the whole amount (Rs. 66 odd) and he transferred to the plaintiff his alleged right of contribution against the defendant. Hence the plaintiff has brought this suit for obtaining such contribution. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that, unless there had been a dissolution of partnership between the plaintiff's assignor and the defendant, no claim for contribution could arise between the partners. I do not think that it could be stated that it is an invariable rule of law that no suit against a partner could under any circumstances be maintained for contribution even in respect of a distinct and separate transaction though connected wi...
Rama Thanthri Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad600; 42Ind.Cas.290
1. We consider that the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title against defendants Nos. 5 and 6 in respect of plots Nos. 1, 1 A and 1 B, subject to the Government's right to levy assessment on the laud, and that the District Judge was in error in supposing on the strength of Subbaraya v. Krishnappa 12 M. 422. that they were not estopped from denying his title. That case proceeded on the assumption that the land in dispute was kumaki waste land and that the person, from whom the 1st defendant got possession, had himself derived his title from Government. Under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, these defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff's title, however defective it might be, so long as they failed to surrender possession to him. Vide, Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh 30 Ind. Cas. 299: 19 C. W. N. 1207: 18 M. L. T. 248: 22 C. L. J. 516.2. As regards plot No. 7 A the District Judge was right in thinking that the plaintiff, having admitted that it was assessed wast...
Murugappa Chettiar Vs. Palaniyappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: (1917)42MLJ507
Phillips, J.1. Under Order XXI, Rule 89, the money paid into Court is (a) & sum for payment to the purchaser and (b) a sum for payment to the decree holder. It is contended for petitioner that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding that the latter sum is available for rateable distribution. The only question is whether the money paid into Court for payment to the decree-holder can be deemed to be 'assets held by the Court' within the meaning of Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Hari Saha v. Faizlar Rahman 18 Ind. Cas. 839, it has been held that it cannot and in Sorabji v. Kala Raghunath 12 Ind. Cas. 911, it has been held that money paid under Order XXI, Rule 55, to set aside an attachment is not available for rateable distribution. The existence of a practice to the contrary in Madras alleged by the Subordinate Judge does not appear to be supported by any reported oases and the Subordinate Judge must apparently have relied on his personal knowledge of the practice. Howev...
British India Steam Navigation Company, Limited, by their Local Agents ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad1173; 42Ind.Cas.536
1. Petitioners ask for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Articles 30 and 31 of Schedule I of the Limitation Aet. The plaint as it stands is for damages for non-delivery by a carrier, and according to the fall Bench decision in Jaldu VenkataSubba Rao v. Asiatic Steam Navigation Co.30 Ind. Cas. 840 the period of limitation is one year and the plaintiff's suit is apparently filed too late. The objection as to limitation was not taken in the Original Court where the suit was decreed.The question now is whether this Court should interfere in revision. The only case actually in point that the petitioner's Counsel can quote is Tara Sankar Ghose v. Nasaruddi 29 Ind. Cas. 476 where it was held that e Court acted with material irregularity when it entertained an application which was on the face of it time barred. In the present case, however, the appeal to the Subordinate Judge, with the decree in which we are now concerned, was not filed ...
Huson and Robinson, the Secretaries for the Thodapuzha Rubber Company, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad680; 42Ind.Cas.674; (1917)33MLJ474
Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter that an allotment by the appellant company of a fully paid up share to a debenture-holder in exchange for his debenture pursuant to a condition in the debenture is an allotment of a share 'as fully paid up otherwise than in cash' within the meaning of Section 104(1)(b) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The debenture-deed provides ' The registered holder hereof shall, while the same remains in force and upon giving previous notice in writing, be entitled to surrender this debenture and receive in consideration thereof one fully paid ordinary share of Es. 100 of the Company part of or ranking pari passu with the ordinary shares of the original capital. Upon the surrender of this debenture under this condition the holder will not be entitled to proportionate interest thereon and the ordinary share so allotted in exchange shall rank for dividend from and after the half year in which the registration is made.' I...
Alagappa Chettiar and Two ors. Vs. Muthukumara Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad511; (1918)ILR41Mad316
Abdur Rahim, J.1. In this case there was a sum of money in deposit in Court and there was a dispute as to who was entitled to that money--the appellants whose claim was based on a trust-deed, or the judgment-debtor of the respondent. The appellants filed a suit to establish their right and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from drawing the money. Thereupon the respondent, on giving an undertaking to the Court, was allowed to draw the money. The appellants succeeded in establishing their title and the only question now before us in the Letters Patent Appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to interest on the amount drawn by the respondent till the date when he paid back the amount. Mr. Justice Srinivasa Ayyangar has decided against the appellants' contention on the ground that the undertaking given by the respondent did not provide for the payment of interest. We do not think that this is a conclusive factor. There is no express provision in the Civil Proc...
The Thodapuzha Rubber Company Limited Vs. the Registrar and Assistant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad307
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter that an allotment by the appellant company of a fully-paid-up share to a debenture-holder in exchange for his debenture pursuant to a condition in the debenture is an allotment of a share as fully paid up otherwise than in cash within the meaning of Section 104(1)(b) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The debenture deed provides The registered holder hereof shall, while the same remains in force and upon giving previous notice in writing, be entitled to surrender this debenture and receive in consideration thereof one fully-paid ordinary share of Its. 100 of the Company part of or ranking pari passu with the ordinary shares of the original capital. Upon the surrender of this debenture under this condition the holder will not be entitled to proportionate interest thereon and the ordinary share so allotted in exchange shall rank for dividend from and after the half-year in which the registration is m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »