Chennai Court April 1920 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 Official Assignee of Madras Vs. S.R.M.M.R.M. Ramaswamy Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ135
1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee from the order of Coutts Trotter, J, on a garnishee summons. The first objection taken is that the appeal is filed out of time. The Official Assignee was represented by attorney who claimed the same privileges as to stamp duty as the Official Assignee has by virtue of Section 115 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.2. This was apparently disputed in the Insolvency office and claim was made upon the Official Assignee's attorney for stamp duty for copy of the order appealed against and the attorney ultimately paid it to save time. But the question before us is whether the attorney as representing the Official Assignee has any stamp duty to pay. If not, the appeal is in time. As pointed out by Mr. A. Krishnasawmy Aiyar the wording of Section 115 is no doubt taken from the English Insolvency Act, and it was no doubt framed with reference to English practice. But at the same time it was to be applied to the practice obtaining in this Court. N...
Jayarama Aiyar Vs. Vridhagiri Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad583; (1920)39MLJ188
Oldfield, J.1. These proceedings were marked in the lower Court by grave irregularities and it is the more necessary that in correcting these irregularities we should be careful to do nothing which would inflict unfair prejudice on either party.2. The sale, which is the subject of these proceedings was according to the proclamation to be held by the Central Nazir of the Cuddalore District Court on 10th July, 1919, and it was held accordingly. On the evening of that day the judgment-debtor represented to the Court that bidders had not come and that the sale was open to objection on other grounds, with which we are not concerned. Afterwards, and this was material in connection with the representation that bidders had not come, he brought to the notice of the Nazir that the process-server charged with the duty of making the proclamation in the village had proclaimed that the sale would be held not by the Central Nazir at Cuddlier but by the District Munsif's Court of Villupuram. This comm...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. S.R.M.M.R.M. Ramaswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad747
Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee from the order of Coutts Trotter, J., on a garnishee summons. The first objection taken is that the appeal is filed out of time. The Official Assignee was represented by an attorney who claimed the same privileges as to stamp duty as the Official Assignee has by virtue of Section 115 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. This was apparently disputed in the Insolvency office and a claim was made upon the Official Assignee's attorney for stamp duty for a copy of the order appealed against, and the attorney ultimately paid it to save time. But the question before us is whether the attorney as representing the Official Assignee has any stamp duty to pay. If not, the appeal is in time. As pointed out by Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar, the wording of Section 115 is taken from the English Insolvency Act, and it was no doubt framed with reference to English practice. But at the same time it has to be applied to the practice obtaining in th...
Jayarama Ayyar Vs. Vridhagiri Ayyar and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad35
Oldfield, J.1. These proceedings were marked in the lower Court by grave irregularities; find and it is the more necessary that in correcting. these irregularities, we should be careful to do nothing which would inflict unfair prejudice on either party.2. The sale, which is the subject of these proceedings, was according to the proclamation to be held by the Central Nazir of the Cuddalore District Court on 10th July 1919 and it was held accordingly. On the evening of that day the judgment-debtor represented to the Court that bidders had not come and that the sale was open to objection on other grounds, with which we are not concerned. Afterwards, and this was material in connexion with the representation that bidders had not come, he brought to the notice of the Nazir that the process-server charged with the. duty of making the proclamation in the village had proclaimed that the sale would be held not by the Central Nazir at Cudda lore but by the District Munsif S Court of Villupuram. ...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. S.R.M.M.R.M. Ramaswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.475
1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee from the order of Courts-Trotter, J., on a garnishee summons. The first objection taken is that the appeal is filed out of time. The Official Assignee was represented by an Attorney who claimed the same privileges as to stamp-duty as the Official Assignee has by virtue of Section 115 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. This was apparently disputed in the insolvency office and a claim was made upon the Official Assignee's Attorney for stamp duty for a copy of the order appealed against and the Attorney ultimately paid it to save time. But the question before us is whether the Attorney, as representing the Official Assignee, has any stamp duty to pay. If not, the appeal is in time. As pointed out by Mr. A. Krishnaswami Iyer, the wording of Section 115 is taken from the English practice. But, at the same time, it has to be applied to the practice obtaining in this Court. Now, Section 115 says: 'No stamp duty or fee shall be chargeable for ...
Asia Bivi and ors. Vs. Sehu Mohamed Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.201; (1920)39MLJ412
Krishnan, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before us. Their suit has been dismissed by the lower Courts in limine, without being tried on the merits on the ground that it is barred by Order IX, Rule 9, of the Civil Procedure Code, by reason of the order in the prior suit, Civil Suit No. 494 of 1913, brought by them against practically the same defendants, regarding the same properties, dismissing it for default under Rule 8, The lower Courts have held that the cause of action for the two suits is one and the same. The learned Vakil for the appellants contends that they were wrong in so holding.2. In considering the applicability of Rule 9, it must be carefully kept in view that it has not the effect of res judicate, for there is no adjudication on any of these issues in the first case. This is pointed out by the Privy Council in Chand Kour V. Partab Singh 15 I.A. 156 . The rule merely bars a second suit on the same cause of action. In that case their Lordships observe: 'The cause...
Raja Jaga Veera Rama Venkateswar Ettapa Nayakar Avergal, Zamindar of E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ203
John Wallis, C.J.1. In May 1900 the plaintiff duly instituted the present suit in the Subordinate Court of Madura West where the mortgaged property was situated and obtained a decree under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. In May 1910, this Court was abolished, and by virtue of Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure this suit was transferred by operation of law to the newly constituted District Court of Ramnad, as the place where the mortgaged property was situated was within the jurisdiction of that Court and was not within the jurisdiction of the newly constituted Subordinate Court of Ramnad. In 1916 the plainthif applied to the Subordinate Court of Ramnad, which as, we have seen, had no jurisdiction over the suit, for a decree for sale under Order 34, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and obtained the decree in 1917. The mistake appears to have been occasioned by the fact that the new Subordinate Court of Ramnad was described in the notification constituting it as c...
Raja Jaga Veera Rama Venkateswara Ettappa Nayakar Avergal, Zamindar of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.871
John Wallis, C.J.1. In May 1900 the plaintiff duly instituted the present suit in the Subordinate Court of Madura West, where the mortgaged property was situated, and obtained a decree under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. In May 1910, this Court was abolished, and, by virtue of Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this suit was transferred by operation-of law to the newly constituted District Court of Ramnad, as the place where the mortgaged property was situated was within the jurisdiction of that Court and was not within the jurisdiction of the newly constituted Subordinate Court of Ramnad. In 1916 the plaintiff applied to the Subordinate Court of Ramnad, which has, we have seen, had no jurisdiction over the suit, for a decree for sale under Order XXXIV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and obtained the decree in 1917. The mistake appears to have been occasioned by the fact that the new Subordinate Court of Ramnad was desorbed in the notification constituting ...
In Re: Pindripolu Venkata Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.824
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. I am inclined to think that the offence committed by the accused properly fell under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. He was a clerk in the service of the Estate and the money in question came into his hands because he was authorised by the Estate Authorities to receive such moneys, on their behalf and he was to pay the money to the Estate Treasury on receiving it.2. The money when received by him was not his money for whish he had merely to account to the Estate, but it was actually the Estate money over whish he was entrusted with dominion only to receive and to pay into the treasury by his contract of service. That being so, his offense, when he dishonestly misappropriated it himself, is one clearly falling within the definition of criminal breach of trust in Section 405, Indian Penal Code. See the ruling in Basiruddin Ahmed v. Emperor 4 Ind. Cas. 48 which I follow. In the case in Queen Emperor v. Ramakrishna 12 M. 49 the learned Judges did not really consider whe...
Muhammad Abdul Kadir Marakayar, Minor by Guardian Muhammad Kasim Marak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ431
Oldfield, J.1. The first question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs, mortgagors, are entitled to execute their decree, one for redemption, by asking the Court to sell the mortgaged property. It is prima facie concluded in their favour by Govinda Taragan v. Veeran 21 M.L.J. 941 since we have been shown no case, in which that decision has been doubted and one, C.M.A. No. 99 of 1915, in which it has been followed, and since Mr. Anantakrishna Ayyar for defendants has declined to argue against its correctness. He has relied only on the fact that the decree provides for a sale at the instance only of the mortgagee. But that appears to have, been the case also in the decision referred to. The objection to the order under appeal must therefore be disallowed.2. The more important contention before us is however that the plaintiff's application for execution was made too late ; and certainly it was so, unless time ran, as they contend, from the date, 10--2--1915, on which an order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »