Chennai Court November 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.
The Official Assignee of Madras and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad118(1); (1924)46MLJ580
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. A preliminary point is taken in this motion, that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear it. The motion is to set aside, an order made by the Court of Appeal, on appeal from an order of Bakewell, J. sitting in Insolvency, under Section 22 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The Court ordered that the adjudication of the insolvent by the Insolvency Court should be annulled on the ground that there had been a later adjudication in Burma and that it would be better and more convenient that the estate should be administered by that Court.2. By Section 8, the Court may review, rescind or vary any order-made by it, in its insolvency jurisdiction and by Section 2, ' Court ' means ' the Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act. ' It is said that the original Insolvency Court which is the Court presided over by the Judge, appointed under Section 6, by the Chief Justice to exercise jurisdiction in insolvency, can review, rescind or vary an order; but th...
Sankaranarayanam Pillai and ors. and V. Gopala Aiyar and ors. Vs. Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.196
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the sons of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and in 1912 defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and third defendant, who were carrying on business together were adjudicated insolvents, and at the same time the plaintiffs who were made parties to the insolvency petition were also adjudicated. The family property of defendants Nos. 1 and, 2 was sold by the Official Receiver and now the plaintiffs bring this suit to recover their 4/9ths share in that property, on the ground that they were wrongly adjudicated insolvents and that, consequently, the sale of their property by the Official Receiver was void as against them.2. Assuming that the plaintiffs who were then minors were wrongly adjudicated insolvents, the question remains whether the sales effected by the Official Receiver did or did not pass their interest in the family property.3. The sale is objected to on two grounds, firstly, that the Official Receiver purported to sell the share of the plaintiffs, and, no...
Sankaranarayana Pillai and ors. Vs. Rajamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad550
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the sons of defendants 1 and 2 and in 1912, defendants 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant who were carrying on business together were adjudicated insolvents, and at the same time the plaintiffs who were made parties to the insolvency petition were also adjudicated. The family properties of defendants 1 and 2 were sold by the Official Receiver and now the plaintiffs bring this suit to recover their 4/9ths share in that property on the ground that they were wrongly adjudicated insolvents and that consequently, the sale of their property by the Official Receiver was void as against them.2. Assuming that the plaintiffs who were then minors were wrongly adjudicated insolvents, the question remains whether the sales effected by the Official Receiver did or did not pass their interest in the family property.3. The sale is objected to, on two grounds, firstly, that the Official Receiver purported to sell the share of the plaintiffs and, not having authorit...
S.D. Annamalai Desikar Vs. M.R. Govinda Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad857
1. The objection is taken that no appeal lies. The order of the Subordinate Judge is one merely ordering notice as required by Rule 3, Order 39. There is no appeal against such an order under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (r).2. There is no other provision pointed out, under which an appeal lies. We uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal against the order with costs....
Ponnuswami Iyer and Narayana Swami Iyer and anr. Vs. Damodar Hunsraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ82
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned City Civil Judge returning the plaint in O.S. No. 530 of 1920 on his file to be presented to the proper Court. The learned Judge held that no part of the cause of action arose within his jurisdiction and therefore passed that order. The suit was brought by the receivers on behalf of a firm in Madras called Kuppuswami Naidu and Company against the defendants, a firm carrying on business in Calcutta, for a certain sum of money which they claimed, had been overpaid to the defendants' firm. Among the pleas raised by the defendants' firm one was that the Court in Madras had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was properly triable only by the Court in Calcutta, where they carried on business and where, according to them, the whole cause of action arose.2. It is not denied that the defendants do not reside, or carry on business, or work for gain in Madras but the plaintiffs rely entirely for their contention that ...
Abdul Sattar Sahib Vs. the Special Deputy Collector, Vizagapatam Harbo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad442; 84Ind.Cas.616; (1924)46MLJ209
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is a reference to a Full Bench under the following circumstances: The Officer acting as Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, Act I of 1884 decided, in the first instance, that certain land to be acquired by the Government for harbour purposes was Government land and that, therefore, no compensation was payable to anybody. Being dissatisfied with that decision or advice one of the persons claiming to be interested in the land in effect asked the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to refer the matter to the District Judge. That application was refused on the ground that the land being Government land there was no right to compensation and that the land Acquisition Act had no application at all. A revision petition was then brought to this Court to revise that order and a preliminary objection was taken that this Court has no revisional powers over such orders. There is a considerable conflict of authority on the point and t...
In Re: P. Kottoora thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad584; (1924)46MLJ311
ORDER1. Petitioners in this case were convicted before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly by a jury of the offence of dacoity, and by the Assistant Sessions Judge himself of the offences of rioting, and by force of Section 149, Indian Penal Code, causing various kinds of hurt. On appeal, the Sessions Judge reversed the convictions under Sections 324 and 325, Indian Penal Code by force of Section 149 and sustained the convictions under Sections 395, 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code. Petitioners contend that there was no legal material on which a conviction under S. '395, Indian Penal Code, can be sustained.2. The facts, which before us as a Court of revision may not be traversed, are that an unlawful assembly of which petitioners are said to have been members, attacked the Adi-Dravida village of Ilavankulam with the common object of committing mischief to the properties of the residents and hurt to then persons, that mischief and hurt were so caused and that in the course of this ...
Ponnuswamy Iyer and ors. Vs. Damodar Hunsraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.800
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned City Civil Judge returning the plaint in O.S. No. 530 of 1920 on his file to be presented to the proper Court. The learned Judge held that no part of the cause of action arose within his jurisdiction and, therefore, passed that order. The suit was brought by the receivers on behalf of a firm in Madras called Kuppuswami Naidu and Company against the defendants, a firm carrying on business in Calcutta, for a certain sum of money which they claimed, had been overpaid to the defendants' firm. Among the pleas raised by the defendants' firm one was that the Court in Madras had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was properly triable only by the Court in Calcutta, where they carried on business and where, according to them, the whole cause of action arose.2. It is not denied that the defendants do not reside, or carry on business, or work for gain in Madras but the plaintiffs rely entirely for their contention that the suit l...
Ponnuswamy Aiyar and Narayanaswamy Aiyar and anr. Vs. Damodar Hunsraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad464
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal, against an order of the learned City Civil Judge, returning the plaint in O.S. No. 530 of 1920, on his file, to be presented to the proper Court. The learned Judge held that no part of the cause of action arose within his jurisdiction and therefore passed that order. The suit was brought by the Receivers on behalf of a firm in Madras called Kuppuswami Naidu and Company, against the defendants, a firm carrying on business in Calcutta, for a certain sum of money, which, they claimed, had been overpaid to the defendant's firm. Among the pleas raised by the defendant's firm, one was that the Court in Madras had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was properly triable only by the Court in Calcutta, where they carried on business and where according to them, the whole cause of action arose.2. It is not denied that the defendants do not reside, or carry on business, or work for gain in Madras; but the plaintiffs rely entirely, for their contenti...
Kandaswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. P. Arunachala Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad462
ORDER1. From the affidavits filed, we think that it has been established that the delay in filing the appeal was really due to the careless arithmetical mistake of the appellant's vakil. The party had not any opportunity of correcting this mistake in time; for, he mainly relies on his vakil's assertion that the appeal need not be filed until August. It would appear that the party had not the money with him, when he first went to the vakil on 1st July; but there is no reason to disbelieve his statement that he had the money on 20th July. The delay till 24th July was due to the vakil's earlier error in calculation and therefore we must reject respondent's contention that this was not really the case. There is considerable authority in the Indian Courts for the proposition that delay caused by the mistake of the party's vakil is sufficient cause for excusing delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; vide Sunderabai v. The Collector of Belgaum A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 135. Bakhal Chandra Ghosh ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »