Chennai Court September 1922 Judgments
Kandasami Mudali Vs. Guruswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ53
ORDER1. These cases come before us on applications for revision of the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor directing further enquiry into a complaint under the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act, XIII of 1859 as amended by Act XII of 1920. The whole proceedings having been brought before us in order that their propriety may be considered, it will serve no useful purpose to consider whether the District Magistrate had the power to make such an order in proceedings under the Act.2. We therefore turn at once to the merits of the question raised. That question is whether the contract, on which the respondent, the employer, relies being a contract made with the two petitioners, the artificers, jointly can be the subject of proceedings under the Act at all. The Sub-Magistrate, who originally dealt with the case, held with reference to Bhan Abaji v. Rama 2 Bom. LR 545 that the Act deals only with cases of advances to individuals and not with cases of advances to more persons than one j...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Mudali and anr. and Vs. Guruswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad184; 71Ind.Cas.61
ORDER1. These cases come before us on application for revision of the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor, directing further enquiry into a complaint under the Workman's Breach of Contract Act, XIII of 1859, as amended by Act XII of 1920. The whole proceedings having been brought before us in order that their propriety may be considered, it will serve no useful purpose to consider whether the District Magistrate had the power to make such an order in proceedings under the Act.2. We, therefore, turn at once to the merits of the question raised. That question is, whether the contract on which the respondent, the employer relies, being a contract made with the two petitioners, the artificers jointly can, be the subject of proceedings under the Act at all. The Sub--Magistrate who originally dealt with the case, held, with reference to Bhau Abaji v. Rama Maruii 2 Bom. L.R. 545, that the Act deals only with cases of advances to individuals and not with cases of advances to more, per...
Tag this Judgment!Sadogopa Ayyangar Vs. Sellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ761
1. The Subordinate Judge ,has in effect found that the execution petitioner is a benamidar for Souri Ayyangar who with the money of 1st defendant purchased the decree.2. This finding is sufficient to bring the case within the scope of the 2nd proviso to Rule 16, Order 21, C.P.C.3. The decree was one for the payment of money against first defendant and three others.4. The fact that 1st defendant was directed by the decree to pay the amount out of his family properties does not make the decree any the less a decree for payment of money against him.5. The observation of Chandavarkar, J. in Panachand v. Sundrabai I.L.R.(1907) 31 Bom. 308 . that 'A decree for money against several persons' means a personal decree for the payment of money by two or more defendants jointly in our opinion puts an unduly nairow interpretation on this provision. The spirit of the rule is that one judgment debtor should not by acquiring the interest of a decree-holder be allowed to put himself into a position in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadagopa Aiyengar Vs. Sellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad510; 72Ind.Cas.861
1. The Subordinate Judge has in effect found that the execution petitioner is a benamidar for Sowri Iyengar who with the money of 1st defendant purchased the decree.2. This finding is sufficient to bring the case within the scope of the 2nd proviso to Rule 16 of Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code.3. The decree was one for the payment of money against first defendant and three others.4. The fact that first defendant was directed by the decree to pay the amount out of his family properties does not make the decree any the less a decree for payment of the money against him.5. The observation of Chandavarkar, J. in Panachand v. Sundrabai 9 Bom. L.R. 409, that 'A decree for money against several persons' means a personal decree for the payment of money by two or more defendants jointly, in our opinion, puts an unduly narrow interpretation on this provision. The spirit of the rule is that one judgment-debtor should not by acquiring the interest of a decreeholder be allowed to put, himself into ...
Tag this Judgment!Kachinamthodi Parambil Saharabi Vs. Kachinamthodi Puthia Purayil Seema ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ141
Spencer, J.1. The District Munsif's order of 17th March 1913 on the claim petition was an improper one as it followed the practice condemned in venkataratnam v. Ranganayakamma ( 35 M.L.J. 335 of notifying claims to intending bidders without investigating them.2. But whatever was the order which should have been passed on the claim I am satisfied that the order that was actually passed was not an order against the claimant within the meaning of Rule 63 of order XXI (of the Code of Civil Procedure), as it did not negative his claim to an undefined share in the property attached. The claimant's petition was not dismissed. The facts of this case are similar to those in Lakshmi Ammal v. Kadiresan Chettiar : AIR1921Mad488 ; and Ayya Pattar v. Attupuratti Va-sudevan Bhattathiripad (1918) 52 I.C. 938 ; and in the course of those decisions it was pointed out that every order which is not in favour of a claimant is not necessarily an order against him.3. In this view the lower appellate Court wa...
Tag this Judgment!V.S.V. Subbaraya Mudali Vs. Thangavelu Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1922
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ44
Devadoss, J.1. This is an appeal against the preliminary decree of the District Judge of Chingleput in Original Suit No. 18 of 1916 by the plaintiff, who sued the defendants 1 to 5 for partition of the family properties and impleaded certain alienees and creditors as defendants. The 1st defendant was the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. 4th defendant is the brother's son of the 1st defendant. 5th defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. Defendants Nos. 6, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37 and 39 are alienees. The rest are creditors.2. The plaint allegations are : the 1st defendant was the manager of the joint family of which plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were members. The properties set out in B schedule are the joint family properties. The plaintiff's family carried on a cloth trade under the name and style of V.S. Varadaraja Mudaly in shop No. 154. The 2nd defendant who was at enmity with the rest of the family carried on a separate trade in another shop under a different...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Ramaswami Goundan Vs. Muthu Velappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad192; 71Ind.Cas.1039; (1923)44MLJ1
Krishnan, J.1. These ptitions arise in connection with the election of the president of the Taluk Board of Gobichettypalayam under the new Madras Local Boards Act, XIV of 1920. Petitioner before us, Mr. Ramaswami Gounder and one of the respondents Mr. Venkatesa Aiyar were the rival candidates for the place. In the election on the 15th of March last, the date fixed for it, Mr. Gounder was declared duly elected. Thereupon an application O.P. No. 51 of 22 was made to the District Judge of Coimbatore. under Section 57 of the Act to have it declared that Mr. Gounder was disqualified as a member under Section 55 Clause (2), (5) and therefore unfit to be a President under Section 15 Clause (1). On this petition the District Judge gave a declaration that Mr. Gounder was disqualified for appointment as a member. It may be mentioned that the date fixed for the new Taluk Board to come into existence in the notification under Rule 9 of the Transitory rules was the 1st of March; the elections and n...
Tag this Judgment!Ponduri Adeyya and ors. Vs. Jaladi Burreyya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad182; 71Ind.Cas.305; (1922)43MLJ725
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the District Judge of Guntur in a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover the properties of one Tirupathayya deceased as the persons entitled to them as his heirs or nearest reversioners. The plaintiffs' case is that their father Kotayya and the deceased Tirupathayya's father, Virayya were divided brothers, that Virayya died long ago, that Tirupathayya died nine months before suit and that their father Kotayya had not been heard of for nearly ten years before the date of suit. They therefore claimed that it should be presumed that Kotayya was dead and that they were thus the nearest reversioners to Tirupathayya.2. Defendants denied the allegation that Kotayya was not heard of for some years, and on that an issue was framed, 'whether plaintiff's father Kotayya was not heard of for ten years as alleged in the plaint.' The District Munsif tried this issue and held that, even if Kotayya had not been heard of for ten years, there w...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Vadamalai Pillai and ors. Vs. P. Subramania Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad262; 71Ind.Cas.130
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought on the strength of an equitable mortgage made by 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 axe the sons of first defendant. Defendants Nos. 7 and 8 are puisne mortgagees. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are now dead and defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 prefer this appeal.2. The evidence on record shows that the plaintiff was lending money to the 1st defendant in a series, of transactions commencing from the 24th of August 1907. Every time that accounts were settled between he parties a promissory note was executed. On the 13th of October 1913 the 1st defendant deposited title-deeds of landed property to secure a debt of Sections 10,900 carrying interest at 12 per cent due on the 12th October 1913. On the 1st of October 1912 there was a consolidation of intermediate loans and on the 4th October 1913 there was a fresh consolidation for which a promissory-note, Exhibit C, for Rs. 13,900 was executed. This was followed, on the 7th of October ...
Tag this Judgment!Mouna Gurusamy Naicker Vs. Sheik Muhammadhu Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad92; (1922)43MLJ713
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dindigal on an application made to him under Order 39 Rule 2(3) to have the defendant punished for disobedience of an injunction which had been issued to him in the suit. The Sub-Judge has declined jurisdiction on the ground that the proper court to punish for disobedience was the court which passed the order of injunction and that as his court was not that court he held he was not entitled to act under Order 39, Rule 2(3).2. The way in which this case came to the Dindigal Court was by an order of the District Judge transferring to that Court all the business within the areas of certain Munsifs over which the Dindigal court was given jurisdiction for the first time.3. It is contended before us that the Subordinate Judge in refusing jurisdiction misconstrued the provisions of Section 150, C.P.C., and that as the business of the court which gran...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »