Chennai Court October 1923 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.
Sattaya Padayachi and ors. Vs. Soundrathatchi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad448; 79Ind.Cas.1017
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent, Oldfield and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ. having differed in A.A.O. No. 226 of 1922.The point is a very short one. The Judge of a Court in the Moffusil having risen for the day went to his club. At his club he was approached by a Vakil who asked him to receive a plaint, it being the last day for the expiration of the period of limitation. The learned Judge accepted the plaint and cancelled the stamp on it by writing upon it the words 'presented to me by' giving the name of the Vakil 'at 7-30 p. m.' and sighed and dated it. It is argued that nevertheless that suit is barred, because it has not been instituted within the period of limitation. Section 3 of the Limitation Act runs thus: 'Subject to the provisions contained in sections to 25 inclusive every suit instituted, appeal preferred and applications made after the period of limitation prescribed therefore, by the first schedule shall be dismissed.' It is argued that t...
Mulpuri Veerabhadradu and anr. Vs. Medapudi Subbarina and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.287
1. These appeals arise out of two suits filed by the plaintiff in the District Munsif's Court of Nuzvid, to eject the defendants who are alleged to be his tenants.2. The land in dispute is situate in Arugolanu Mokhasa within the ambit of the Nuzvid Zemindari. It is alleged to have been exchanged for patta lands held under Government pattas. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits as the land forms part of the estate within the meaning of the Estates Laud Act. The District Munsif found the 5th issue, namely, whether the suit village is an estate, in favour of the defendants, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suits on the ground that the land in question was part of an estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the village in which the suit land is situate forms part of the Nuzvid Zemindari and is an 'estate' as defined in Section 3, Col. 2 (e) of the Estates Land Act, that the charact...
Thirumalai Gandama Nagaya Ramakrishna Kadirveluswamy Naicker (Minor) b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.163
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. This reference ought not to have been made to this Bench. The two Judges who heard the matter were agreed, and I see no reason for adding anything to their statements on the points on which they were agreed.2. The first point is quite a simple one, whether under Section 52 of the Civil Procedure Code the income of landed property which has passed from one Zamindar to the next, the property being an impartible Raj, is liable to execution for the debts of the deceased zamindar, that is to say, in this case, the father of the appellant. Ologappa Chetty v. Arbuthnot 11. A. 268 : 14 B.L.R. 115 : 3 Sar. P.C.J. 818 : 21 W.R.38. is a direct authority for the proposition that the income of such property is liable. The English Law is perfectly plain, and to the same effect, as laid down in a long series of cases relating to the income from realty which has descended to the heir-at-law. Stratford v. Ritson 10 Beav. 25 : L.J. Ch. 176 : 11 Jur. 177 is a good instance, i...
James Ralph Freer Vs. H.A. Johnson
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad446; (1924)46MLJ282
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. In this divorce case the petitioner and the Co-respondent are both engine-drivers. The trial Judge has found the respondent guilty of adultery on the evidence of her having given birth to a child over a year after leaving the petitioner, and granted a decree of divorce. He has exonerated the co-respondent from the charges of adultery brought against him, and dismissed him from the suit with costs. The petitioner asks that the decree be confirmed and appeals against the exoneration of the co-respondent and asks for damages and costs against him. There was a considerable body of evidence against the co-respondent on which the trial Judge refused to act, although he did in the course of his judgment say that in course of time the intimacy between the respondent and the co-respondent appeared to have overstepped the bounds of decency. There was fairly direct evidence of adultery given by the petitioner's mother and son, and this the Judge definitely disbe...
Best and Co., Ltd., Agents of the Nobel's Explosives Co., Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.928; (1924)46MLJ217
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question for decision is whether an English company with sterling capital is liable to assessment under the heading ' Tax on Companies ' under the Madras City Municipal Act, IV of 1919. This depends on the proper interpretation of S. no and of Rule 7 of Schedule IV which must be read together. That section runs: ' Every incorporated company transacting business within the City for profit...shall pay by way of licence fee ...a half-yearly tax on its paid-up capital on the scale shown in the taxation rules in Schedule IV but in no case exceeding rupees one thousand, if and as soon as it has transacted business in the city for the period prescribed in Section 113.' Turning to Rule 7 of Schedule IV it runs: 'Companies shall be assessed by the Commissioner on the following scale:Paid-up capital--lakhs of rupees. Half-yearly tax.A. More than twenty ... ... Rs. 1,000.B. More than ten, less than twenty ... Rs. 500.etcetera.' This has been slightly amended...
Best and Co. Ltd. Agents of the Nobel's Explosive Co. Ltd. Vs. the Cor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad262
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C.C.J.1. The question for decision is whether an English company, with sterling capital, is liable to assessment under the heading 'Tax on Companies' under the Madras City Municipal Act, IV of 1919. This depends on the proper interpretation of Section 110 and of Rule (7) of Schedule IV which must be read together. That section runs:Every incorporated company transacting business within the city for profit . . . shall pay by way of licence fee . . . a half-yearly tax on its paid-up capital on the scale shown in the taxation rules in Schedule IV but in no case exceeding rupees one thousand, if and as soon as it has transacted business in the city for the period prescribed in Section 113.2. Turning to Rule (7) of Schedule IV, it runs:Companies shall be assessed by the Commissioner on the following scale:Paid-up capital--lakhs of rupees. Half-yearly tax. RS.A. More than twenty ... ... ... 1,000B. More than ten, less than twenty ... 500etcetera.3. That has been ...
Vellora Kabuppan Vettil Chiyanchebi Chathukutty Nair Vs. Kallur Vengay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad611(1); 78Ind.Cas.118
1. This appeal relates to a question of Court-fees on the plaint. The Sub-Judge has found that the first relief prayed for is the cancellation of the plaint Samu-dayam deed, but in this he is clearly wrong, for plaintiff is not a party to the deed and merely wants a declaration that the deed is not binding on the Devaswom. For authority we may refer to Unni v. Kunchiamma 14 M. 26 : 5 Ind. Dec. 19, Ramaswamy Nadan v. Subramania Nadan 40 Ind. Cas. 690 : 32 M.L.J. 447 Chappan v. Paru 15 Ind. Cas. 587 : 87 M. 420 : 13 M.L.T. 118 and respondents' Vakil does not seriously dispute this conclusion.2. Plaintiff also asks for an injunction and accounts as reliefs consequential on this declaration.3. His suit in respect of these reliefs comes under Section 7, iv, (c), The Court-Fees Act, 1870, and the recently added proviso to the section does not affect the case, for we are satisfied that the Samudayam deed does not create any charge on immoveable property. Plaintiff is entitled to place his own...
Best and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad420
Spencer, J.1. I have perused the judgment of my learned brother and I regret that I am unable to agree with his conclusions.2. I agree with the opinion of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes that Madras Act IV of 1919 does not either expressly, or by implication, confer on the Commissioner of the Corporation power to determine the value in the currency of British India of any sum, expressed in any currency, other than that of British India and that under Rule 7 he can only impose assessment under Section 110, in respect of those companies, the paid-up capital of which is expressed in rupees. In this view, the first two questions of the case stated for the opinion of the High Court, under Rule 17 of Schedule 4, will have to be answered in the negative and it becomes unnecessary to express an opinion on the third question.3. On three points, I am constrained to differ from my learned brother. In the first place, I do not consider that it is legitimate for us to hazard a ...
Gangabattula Kanthamma Vs. Manchiraju Reddipantulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ134
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the appellate order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in appeal-to him from an order of the District Munsif of Cocanada in an execution proceeding. The appellant before Us was the judgment-debtor under a decree passed by the District Munsif's Court which was under execution, and her property was advertised for sale in Court auction. The sale was actually held by the Nazir, the Court officer, in the usual way and the 1st respondent bid for the property and offered a price of Rs. 4,600 which was accepted by the Court officer and the bid was knocked down in his favour. Under O. XXI Rule 84 C. P. C, the purchaser is bound to pay 25 per cent of the purchase money on the completion of the auction. The 1st respondent made default in making the payment and in consequence under the same rule the property was again put up for sale. This time the property was knocked down for a lower sum, namely, Rs. 3,750 thus leading to deficit of Rs. 850. The ...
Ayyadevara Surya Chandra Mohanleswara Rao, Minor by Mother and Guardia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ189
1. In this case the plaintiff is the widow of the deceased brother of the 1st defendant's father and she brought this suit for maintenance and obtained a decree. The defendants now appeal.2. When the plaintiff brought her suit originally she ignored the existence of certain documents executed in 1913, Exs. II and IV, whereby her light to maintenance was fixed at Rs. 75 per annum; but after the written statement was filed she amend- . ed her plaint and alleged that these documents were not binding on her and that she was entitled to maintenance at a higher rate. The Subordinate Judge found that the documents of 1913 were not obtained by undue influence and that the plaintiff had executed her counterpart with full knowledge of its contents and effect; but held that the stipulation in that document that she would not claim any higher rate of maintenance in the future was not binding on her apparently because the 1st defendant's father had not similarly undertaken that he would never claim...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »