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.
Kuppu Ramanatha Aiyar (Dead) and ors. Vs. Thoguluva S. Nagendra Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad223; 76Ind.Cas.805; (1923)45MLJ827
1. This case refers to what is ordinarily called 'the after-acquired' property of an insolvent. The respondent after he was adjudicated an insolvent in 1909 seems to have started a partnership with the appellant. He has now brought a suit to wind up that partnership and for an account and for payment over to him of any money that may be found due to him. The suit was brought in 1919. The partnership had been started in 1911 and it seems to have lasted till the end of 1916. In the Insolvency proceedings no receiver seems to have been appointed at first, and it was only on 29-3-1919 the Official Receiver was appointed as Receiver. The defendant pleaded in the suit that the plaintiff was an undischarged insolvent and that he was not entitled to bring the suit or to go on with it. The District Munsif gave effect to that objection and dismissed his suit. The Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision and remanded the suit for disposal according to law. It is against that decision that the...
Manyam Surayya Vs. Surkavalli Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad210; 79Ind.Cas.779; (1923)45MLJ822
1. This case raises a question of limitation in execution proceedings. The appellant before us brought a suit against the widow of one Narayya on a promissory note executed by the said Narayya and while the suit was pending he obtained an order of attachment before judgment of certain properties belonging to Narayya in the hands of the widow, lie then obtained a decree against the assets of Narayya in the hands of the widow. 8 days thereafter a claim petition seems to have been put in by one Peramma claiming those properties to be hers and to be not attachable for the debt of Narayya. That claim petition was allowed. Thereupon the decree holder had to bring a ''suit to contest the order in the claim proceedings and having brought the suit he finally succeeded in getting a decree only on the 8th December 1920 that the properties belonged to his judgment-debtor. In the meanwhile, it is true that he took no steps to execute the decree. He then put in the present application, which is now ...
Muthiah Goundan and ors. Vs. Chinna Nallappa Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.702
ORDER1. We think there has been an enquiry before the District Munsif on the application for sanction. Even if Exhibit B is not proved, Exhibit A is. evidence and is enough to make out a prima facie case. It may be that the District Judge is not altogether correct in saying that no enquiry is necessary but his error is immaterial. There has been an enquiry in this case sufficient in our opinion, having regard to the nature of the statements in the counter-petition and we are also of opinion that the Courts below have exercised their judicial discretion as to whether the sanction is necessary in the public interest.2. We do not think that it can be inferred from. Public Prosecutor v. Raver Unithiri 24 Ind. Cas. 145 : 26 M.L.J. 511 : 15 M.L.T. 403 : 15 Cri.L.J. 409 that the sanction of the First Court and a complaint based on it lapse. We are unable to hold that the new Criminal Procedure Code Amending Act affects the sanction or the complaint filed under it under the Act before the amen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›