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.
Kokku Parthasaradhi Naidu Garu Vs. Chintalachervu Koteswara Rao Garu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ201
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an application for the revision of the decision of the District Judge acting under the powers conferred upon him by the rules framed under the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920. By the Rule 1 of the rules issued by the Local Government under the powers conferred on them by Section 199 (2) (c), 'No election of a Member or of a President of a District, Taluq, or Union Board shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules, to the District or Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction. ' A preliminary point is taken that this Court has no power of revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure over the decision of a District or Subordinate Judge when acting under that rule. That depends on whether the Judges therein referred to are acting as Courts, or acting merely as persona designata, that is to say, persons selected to act in the matter in their private capacity and not in their capacity...
K. Parthasarathi Naidu Garu Vs. C. Koteswara Rao Garu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad561
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an application for the revision of the decision of the District Judge acting under the powers conferred upon him by the Rules framed under the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920. By the Rule of the Rules issued by the Local Government under the powers conferred on them by Section 199(2)(c), 'No election of a Member or of a President of a District, Taluq, or Union Board shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules, to the District or Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction.' A preliminary point is taken that this Court has no power of revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure over the decision of a District or Subordinate Judge when acting under that rule. That depends on whether the Judges therein referred to are acting as Courts, or acting merely as persona designata, that is to say, persons selected to act in the matter in their private capacity and not in their capacity as Judges. There has be...
Srinivasa Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Annathanam Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad135
Krishnan, J.1. This is a revision petition under Sections 115, C.P.C. and 107 of the Government of India Act against an order passed by the District Judge of Trichinopoly on an application made by one worshipper in a Temple called Gunasselam in Trichinopoly District under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act XIV of 1920.2. The application was made under Section 3 of the Act to direct the trustees of the temple to furnish the petitioner through the Court with particulars of the value and condition of the jewels, vessels and other articles belonging to the deity, to direct the accounts of the temple for the last three years to be examined and audited, to order the respondents to produce all documents relating to the Temple and its properties and to appoint a Commissioner to take the keys and prepare an inventory of all the jewels, vessels, and other articles, belonging to the deity. To this application there were only three respondents added, and it was stated in the petition, that th...
Ramasami Reddi Vs. Thalawasal Marudai Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad453
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand by the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in a suit brought by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendants from the plaint properties. The defendants pleaded, inter alia, that they had a right of occupancy in the land and that they could not be ejected. This plea, it was urged by the plaintiff, was res judicata between the parties and could not in consequence be raised by the defendants. The Munsif gave effect to the plea and took no evidence on the question of occupancy right. The Subordinate Judge has reversed his judgment and has held that the plea of res judicata is not well founded, and, having also held on another preliminary issue on the question of limitation that that issue should be found upon only after evidence was taken in the case, has remitted the suit to be tried by the Munsif after taking such evidence.2. The main question argued before us is the question of res judicata and that question arises in this way. The plaintif...
Palaniandi Chetti Vs. Adaikalam Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad459
Waller, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge, West Tanjore, appointing one Adaikalam Chetti as guardian of his minor nephew. Adaikalam Chetti was the applicant in the guardianship petition, which was opposed by Sami Chetti, the minor's paternal uncle. The latter appealed, but died during the pendency of the appeal. His son was brought on record as his legal representative and seeks to prosecute the appeal. Objection is taken that the right to sue does not survive and that the appeal has abated.2. The objection is based on the decision reported in Gangabai v. Khashabai I.L.R(1899) . 23 Bom. 719. The facts of that case were, however, very different from those with which we are now concerned. The appellant there relied on a personal appointment as guardian under a will, and her brother, after her death, applied for leave to prosecute her appeal. it was held that a claim based on a personal trust did not survive. As Parsons, C.J., observed:It cannot be said that th...
Assistant Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ150
ORDERWalter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is a stamp reference on the following facts. An award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act with which the party entitled to compensation was not satisfied, and under that Act the matter was referred to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes for disposal, and he increased the award by an amount of Rs. 42,763. Being dissatisfied with that award, the department of Government interested prefers an appeal to this Court, and the question is what stamp that appeal has got to bear.2. By Section 8 of the Court Fees Act' the amount of the fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public purposes shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. ' Now it is argued for the appellant, that is to say the department interested, that that has no applicatio...
The South Indian Railway Company by their Agent Vs. S.P.R.S. Narayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ302
1. The findings called for have been received. I will deal first with that relating to the claim under Section 77 of the Railways Act. The finding of the Subordinate Judge is that the notice given by Plaintiff reached the proper officer to whom it should have been sent. The particular notice was, I take it, the letter addressed by plaintiff on 19--8--19 to the District Traffic Superintendent, Trichinopoly (Exhibit D), and replied to by the Deputy Traffic Manager (Freight). It is not quite clear whom the Subordinate Judge considered to be the ' proper Officer,' but I imagine that he meant by this expression the General Traffic Manager of the Railway. His argument, I understand, is this. Plaintiff's letter to the District Traffic Superintendent was replied to by the General Traffic Manager (as a matter of fact, the reply came from his Deputy); the notice sent by plaintiff to the Agent was referred by the latter to the General Traffic Manager; the consignment receipt indicates that consig...
Arunagiri Mudaliar Vs. Kandaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad635; 83Ind.Cas.955
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal arising from an insolvency proceeding, before the District Judge of North Arcot. The first respondent before us had applied, to be adjudicated an insolvent, to that Court in October 1919. The appellant before us was one of his creditors, who had a simple mortgage over a good portion of the insolvent's properties for a part of his debts. He was partly a secured and partly an unsecured creditor of the insolvent.2. The petition was referred, by the District Judge, to the Official Receiver for disposal, and the Official Receiver acting under his powers under section 80 (a) of the Act, heard the petition and passed an order of adjudication in August 1920. In that order, he gave the insolvent time for five months to file his application for discharge under Section 27 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It was suggested in this case that the Official Recever had no power to fix the time within which the debtor should apply for his discharge as Section 27 (1)...
In Re: Assistant Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad489(1)
ORDERSchwabe, C.J.1. This is a stamp reference on the following facts. An award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act, with which the party entitled to compensation was not satisfied; and under that Act, the matter was referred to the Chief Judge of line Court of Small Causes for disposal; and he increased the award by an amount of Rs. 42,763. Being dissatisfied with that award, the department of Government interested, prefers an appeal to this Court, and the question is, what stamp that appeal has got to bear.2. By Section 8 of the Court Fees Act:the amount of the tee payable under this Act, OD a Memorandum of Appeal, against an order relating to compensation, under any Act, for the time being in force for acquisition of land for public purposes, shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.3. Now, it is argued for the appellant, that is to say, the department interested, that that has no application, where the...
South India Ry. Co. Vs. S.P.R.S. Narayana Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad567
Ayling, J.1. This Revision Petition arises out of a Small Cause Suit in which the respondent, the consignee of a bale of cotton thread entrusted for transport to the South Indian Railway Company, sued the Company for Rs. 470 damages for the loss of the said bale in transit. The bale was entrusted to the Railway Company on 2-4-1919. Nothing has been heard of it since and there can be no possible doubt that it must be treated as lost. The loss of the bale is the basis of the suit.2. The liability of the company has to be determined with reference to a special agreement Exhibit I entered into between them and the consignor at the time of the despatch of the bale. This provides that in consideration of the carriage of the bale being at a lower rate the consignee (under whom, of course, plaintiff claims) has no right EO compensation for loss of the goods except in the event of wilful neglect of the railway administration or theft by or wilful neglect of its servants during transit. It is fu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »