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.
Kavali Sankara Rao Garu Vs. Turlapati Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad461; (1924)46MLJ184
Krishnan, J.1. These are three appeals by two creditors of one Ramakrishnayya, an insolvent, who sought to get set aside by the lower Court two sales by the Official Receiver of Kistna, of two items of properties belonging to the insolvent. Their applications were dismissed by the learned District Judge on the ground that it was out of time under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the applications having been filed more than 21 days from the date of the two sales.2. In appeal it is argued before us by the learned Vakil for the creditors that Section 68 does not apply to this case as the sales cannot be considered to have been made by a properly authorised Receiver, but by some one who had no power to deal with the properties. The argument is that, after the adjudication of the insolvent in this case, no order vesting the property of the insolvent in the Official Receiver was made, and without such an order the Official Receiver gets no right to deal with the insolvent's prope...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kandasami thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1923
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ597
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused on charges relating to a money order which came to his hands in his capacity of postman. I am quite at a loss to understand how, on the face of the evidence, in this case, the learned Judge could have arrived at the conclusion at which he arrived. In my judgment, it is against all the evidence. He has given entirely wrong grounds from start to finish.2. The facts are that Rs. 20 was sent to a woman called Muniammal by her daughter who was away in the Malay States. The money order, Exhibit C, purports on the face of it, to have been paid over to the lady, P.W. 1, and to bear her left hand thumb-mark witnessed by a man called Doraiswami. The accused says that he received that document and the money from the local postmaster, took it to P.W. 1, paid the money to her and got her receipt by taking her thumb-mark witnessed by Doraiswami. It is perfectly clear on the evidence that he did not...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Kandasami thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1927Mad696
Schwabe C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused on charges relating to a money order which came to his hands in his capacity of postman. I am quite at a loss to understand how, on the face of the evidence, in this case, the learned Judge could have arrived at the conclusion at which ne arrived. In my judgment, it is against all the evidence. He has given entirely wrong grounds from start to finish.2. The facts are that Rs. 20 was sent to a woman called Muniammal by her daughter who was away in the Malay States. The money order, Exhibit C, purports on the face of it, to have been paid over to the lady P. W. 1 and to bear her left hand thumb-mark witnessed by a man called Doraiswami. The accused says that he received that document and the money from the local postmaster, took it to P. W. 1, paid the money to her and got her receipt by taking her thumb-mark witnessed by Doraiswami. It is perfectly clear on the evidence that he did nothing of the kind. Th...
Kavali Sanakara Rao Garu Vs. Turlapati Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.294
Krishnan, J.1. These are three appeals by two creditors of one Ramakrishnayya, an insolvent, who sought to get set aside by the lower Court two sales by the Official Reoeiver of Kistna, of two items of properties belonging to the insolvent. Their applications were dismissed by the learned District Judge on the ground that it was out of time under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Aot, the appplications having been filed more than 21 days from the date of the two sales.2. In appeal it is argued before us by the learned Vakil for the creditors that Section 68 does not appply to this case as the sales cannot be considered to have been made by a properly authorized Receiver but by some one who had no power to deal with the properties. The argument is that, after the adjudioation of the insolvent in this case, no order vesting the property of the insolvent in the Offioial Receiver was made, and without such an order the Offioial Reoeiver gets no right to deal with the insolvent's prop...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. N. Rajabadhar Pillai (Minor) by Gu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.536
Waller, J.1. The Chief Justice.--This is an appeal from the judgment of Krishnan, J., in a partition suit from so much of his decree as directed that the first defendant should account for a sum of Rs. 6,500 shown to have come into his hands as a part of the joint family assets. The 1st defendant was the manager of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law, the other persons interested being a minor brother, and their mother and sister who were entitled to rights of maintenance. The lit defendant has become an insolvent and the Official Assignee of Muftis on behalf of his creditors represents his interest. The facts, so far as they are relevant, are that Rs. 6,500 which'fbrmed part of the ancestral property were deposited in a Bank and, some years ago, drawn out by the 1st defendant. Of that amount Rs. 2,500 were deposited with Messrs. Beardsell and Co., as security for the honesty of the 1st defendant who was entering the service of that firm as Cash-keeper. The balance has ...
Mantina Ramachanda Raju and anr. Vs. Sri Raja Mantripragoda Bhujanga R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ46
1. The preliminary decree which was for the possession of immoveable property awarded mesne profits subsequent to suit, and the plaintiff applied under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C. for ascertainment of those profits. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order in the plaintiff's favour and the defendants have filed the Civil Revision Petition assailing this order.2. The defendants object that the plaintiff was precluded from making the application in question by reason of the fact that he made previous applications in order to get the same relief and those applications were rejected. The material-facts with reference to which this contention is advanced are these. The plaintiff filed an Execution Petition and he sought to execute the decree so far as it was capable of execution, but he in addition prayed for ascertainment of mesne profits under the erroneous impression that profits were to be ascertained in execution. As the Execution Petition was not accompanied by a copy of the decree, ...
V.N.P. Kumaraswami Nadar Vs. Venkatasami Koundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ242
1. This appeal arises from an application made by the 7th creditor in the Insolvency proceedings of one Thirumula Goundan. The seventh creditor claimed to prove for Rs. 7,000. The Official Receiver allowed the claim in part but disallowed it in respect of the amount claimed under the promissory note Ex. B. The creditor then applied to the District Judge under Section 68 of the Insolvency Act against the order of the Official Receiver and prayed that the whole of his claim may be allowed. The learned District Judge, after considering the circumstances of the case and the evidence, has granted him his prayer; and the present appeal is by the 15th respondent, one of the other creditors.2. Two points have been taken before us as vitiating the order of the District Judge altogether. The first is that the order was passed without making the Official Receiver a formal party to the application before the District Judge. The creditors apparently were all made parties and notice had been given t...
Mautina Ramachandra Raju and anr. Vs. Sri Rajah Mautipragada Bujanga B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.635
1. The preliminary decree which was for the possession of immoveable property awarded mesne profits subsequent to suit, and the plaintiff applied under Order XX, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, for ascertainment of profits. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order in the plaintiff's favour and the defendants have filed this Civil Revision Petition assailing this order.2. The defendants object that the plaintiff was precluded from making the application in question by reason of the fact that he made previous applications in order to get the same relief and those applications were rejected. The material facts with reference to which this contention is advanced are these. The plaintiff filed an Execution Petition and he sought to execute the decree so far as it was capable of execution, but in addition prayed for ascertainment of mesne profits under erroneous impression that profits were to be ascertained in execution. As the Execution Petition was not accompanied by a copy of the decre...
Kumaraswami Nadar Vs. Venkatasami Koundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.857
1. This appeal arises from an application made by the 7th creditor in the Insolvency proceedings of one Tirumula Goun-dan. The 7th creditor claimed to prove for Rs. 7,000. The Official Receiver allowed the claim in part but disallowed it in respect of the amount claimed under the Promissory-Note Ex. B. The creditor then applied to the District Judge under Section 68 of the Insolvency Act against the order of the Official Receiver and prayed that the whole of his claim may be allowed. The learned District Judge, after considering the circumstances of the case and the evidence, has granted him his prayer, and the present appeal is by the 15th respondent, one of the other creditors.2. Two points have been taken before us as vitiating the order of the District Judge altogether. The first is that the order was passed without making the Official Receiver a formal party to the application before the District Judge The creditors apparently were all made parties and notice had been given to all...
M. Ramachandra Raju and anr. Vs. M.P. Bhujanga Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad473
1. The preliminary decree which was for the possession of immoveable property awarded mesne profits subsequent to suit and the plaintiff applied under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ascertainment of those profits. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order in the plaintiff's favour and the defendants have filed the Civil Be vision Petition assailing this order.2. The defendants object that the plaintiff was precluded from making the application in question by reason of the fact that he made previous applications in order to get the same relief and those applications were rejected. The material facts with reference to which this contention is advanced are these. The plaintiff filed an execution petition and be sought to execute the decree, so far as it was capable of execution, but he in addition prayed for ascertainment of mesne profits under the erroneous impression that profits were to be ascertained in execution. As the execution petition was not accompanied b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »