Chennai Court August 1920 Judgments
Varanasi Ramanna Vs. Killamsetti Appanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.181
Krishnan, J.1. The first objection to the award is that the arbitrators anted beyond the scope of the submission in including in their award a decision about gunny bags and mustard sends. This objection depends solely on the construction of Exhibit M. I think that the District Munsif's view about it is correct as the document speaks of 'all other matters' also. The nest objection taker is that at one of the hearings one of the arbitrators, D.W. No. 3, was absent and it is contended, on the strength of the rulings in Thammiraju v. Bapiraju 4 Ind. Dec. 428 and Nand Ram v. Hater Chand 7 A. 523, that this vitiated the award altogether. No doubt on one day when the arbitrators met D.W. No. 3 was absent and though D.W. No. 4 says some information regarding the price of generally was obtained from the parties that day, it is contradicted by P.W No. 3, one of the three arbitrators, and he is supported in a way by the evidence of P.W. No. 2. The third arbitrator P.W. No. 3 says no enquiry took ...
Tag this Judgment!Empire of India Life Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. S. Nanu Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad309; (1921)ILR44Mad170
Napier, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by one S. Nanu Ayyar against the Empire of India Life Assurance Company of Bombay. The plaintiff alleges that he was once an agent of the Company and claims a declaration and an account in respect of all premia paid by policy-holders in respect of all policies procured by the plaintiff after the termination of the plaintiff's services as agent. The plaintiff does not allege that he was wrongfully dismissed or claim damages for wrongful dismissal. The lower Appellate Court has found that he was an agent employed by the Company and was properly dismissed for misconduct, but on the terms of his engagement, as found by itself, has held that the plaintiff is entitled to premia on the original policies obtained through his efforts for three years prior to the suit. I accept the finding as to the agency, but the important question remains whether the lower Appellate Court has based its finding as to the terms of engagement on proper materia...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jonnalagedda Appala Narasayya Bhukta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ484
ORDER1. Reading Sections 250 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together, we cannot say that the order for compensation made in spite of the complainant's request for the examination of his remaining witnesses is illegal. But in our opinion it is not one that should be made except in very exceptional cases. Directly a Magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering the making of an order against him under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant's position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the Criminal Procedure Code and is on his defence though not actually accused. The Code provides for a record of his objection and it seems to us that his position is made by the words of the Code stronger than that of a complainant against whom sanction for prosecution for an offence under Section 182 or Section 211, I.P.C. is sought, and in such cases this Court has always required that notice and opportunity to meet should be given and the party permitted t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Appalanarasayya Bhukta and Seven ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad51
ORDER1. Reading Sections 250 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together we cannot say that the order for compensation made in spite of the complainant's request for the examination of his remaining witnesses is illegal. But in our opinion it is not one that should be made except in very exceptional cases. Directly a Magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering making an order against him under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant's position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the Criminal Procedure Code and is on his defence though not actually accused. The Code provides for a record of his objection, and it seems to us that his position is made, by the words of the Code, stronger than that of a complainant against whom sanction for prosecution for an offence under Section 182 or 211, Indian Penal Code, is sought, and in such cases this Court has always required that notice and opportunity to meet should be given and the party permitted to...
Tag this Judgment!Dhada Sahib Vs. Muhammad Sultan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.311
1. The plaintiff bought certain specific lands from the first defendant, a widow. The first defendant had bought this land from a co-parcener in a Hindu family. The other co-parceners instituted a suit for partition and it was during the pendency of that suit that the first defendant sold the land to the plaintiff. By the Decree in the suit for partition the land with which we are concerned was not allotted to the vendor of the first defendant but some other land was given to him instead. According to the dictum of the learned Judges of this Court in Nanjaya Mudali v. Shancuga Mudali 22 Ind. Cas. 555 , under such circumstances, so far as any question lay between the first defendant and the co-parcener from whom they bought the land, the first defendant would be entitled to whatever was substituted by any decree for partition for the land which he had bought from the co-parcener. The principle seems to have been acquiesced in in two other decisions of this Court, one of which is reporte...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jonnalagadda Appalanarasayya Bhukta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.913
ORDER1. Reading Sections 250 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together, we cannot say that the order for compensation made in spite of the complainant's request for the examination of his remaining witnesses is illegal. But, in our opinion, it is not one that should be made except in very exceptional cases Directly the Magistrate informs a complainant that he is considering making an order against him under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant's position is changed and he comes within the mischief of the Criminal Procedure Code and is on his defense, though not actually accused. The Code provides for a record of his objection and it seems to us that his position is made by the words of the Code stronger than that of a complainant against whom sanction for prosecution for an offense under Section 182 or 211, Indian Penal Code, is sought, and in such cases this Court has always required that notice and opportunity to meet should be given and the party p...
Tag this Judgment!Chamiyappa Tharagan alias Chinnappa Tharagan (Family Manager) Vs. M.S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad30; (1921)40MLJ65
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal from a decree for redemption raises questions of some importance as to the duration and effect of an attachment of immoevable property in execution of a money decree in O.S. No. 341 of 1994 in the Palghat District Munsifs Court against the present 7th defendant and the other members of his family. The decree 'was transferred for execution to the Palghat Sub-ordinate Court which attached the immoveable properties of the family including the properties now in suit on 9th September, 1895. The attachment was struck off for want of process on the 4th November following, and the decree went back to the Munsifs Court, where the decree-holders recovered certain sums by way of rateable distribution in 1996 and 1897, and thereafter kept the decree alive by applications to that court for execution against the person until the 5th of March, 1907, the day before the decree would have become barred. when the transferee of the decree made a fresh application to the Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Kotikalapudi Kattayya Vs. Sree Rajah Venkataramayya Row Bahadur and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ571
1. The only question of law which arises related to the interpretation of Sections 163 and 45 of the Madras Estates Land Act as bearing on plaintiff's claim to recover mesne profits as damages. In this connection we are disposed to think that the District Munsif is right and the Subordinate Judge is wrong. Section 163 is a section which specifically gives jurisdiction to the Civil Court (1) to evict a trespasser, and (2) to award (as damages for the trespass) ' any sum payable under Section 45.' Such a section must in our opinion be strictly interpreted and we do not think the Civil Court can be held to have power to award any thing else than 'the sum payable under Section 45.' But this sum, where, as in the present case, no rent is fixed for the land, is a sum to be determined by the Collector and by no one else, and we cannot follow the Subordinate Judge's reasoning that the Civil Court becomes vested' with the Collector's power to fix the rent and assess the. damages.' It would seem...
Tag this Judgment!Chamiyappa Tharagan Vs. Rama Ayyar and Eight ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad232
John Wallis, C.J.1. This appeal from a decree for redemption raises questions of some importance as to the duration and effect of an attachment of immoveable property in execution of a money-decree in O.S. No. 341 of 1894 in the Palghat District Munsif's Court against the present seventh defendant and the other members of his family. The decree was transferred for execution to the Palghat Subordinate Court which attached the immoveable properties of the family including the properties now in suit, on 9th September 1895. The attachment was struck off on 4th November following for want of process, and the decree went back to the Munsif's Court, where the decree-holders recovered certain sums by way of rateable distribution in 1896 and 1897, and thereafter kept the decree alive by applications to that Court for execution against the person until 5th March 1907, the day before the decree would have become barred, when the transferee of the decree made a fresh application to the Subordinate...
Tag this Judgment!Kotikalapudi Kattayya Vs. Sree Rangiah Venkatu Ramay Approw Bahadur an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.32
1. The only question of law which arises relates to the interpretation of Sections 163 and 45 of the Madras Estates Land Act as bearing on plaintiff's claim to recover mesne profits a damages. In this connection we are disposed to think that the District Munsif is right and the Subordinate Judge wrong. Section 163 is a section which specifically gives jurisdiction to the civil Court (1) to evict a trespasser and (2) to award (as damages for the tresspass) any sum payable under Section 45.' Such a section must, in our opinion, be strictly interpreted and we do not think the civil Court can be held to have the power to award anything else than 'the sum payable under Section 45'. But this sum where, as in 'the present case, no rent is fixed for the land, is a sum to be determined by the Collector and by no one else and we cannot follow the Subordinate Judge's reasoning that the Civil Court becomes vested with the Collector's power to fix the rent and assess the damages.' It would seem to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »