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.
M. Subbramiah Vs. Bausilal Abeerchand and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.966
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition in insolvency made on behalf of some Cuddappah creditors of the first insolvent who claimed that, as far as the assets of the Cuddappah business were concerned they were entitled to priority over the Madras creditors, who, they alleged, were creditors of the two insolvents in partnership in Madras. The learned Judge has found as a fact that, in respect of the Madras business, the Madras creditors did not know that the second insolvent was a partner but treated him only as an agent of the firm and that, therefore, they are entitled to prove, in competition with the Cuddapah creditors, against what may be called the Cuddapah assets. Assuming that the finding was open to him and that it was a correct finding of fact then on the authority of the Old English case, In ex prte Hodgkinson (1815) 19 Ves. Jun. 291 : 34 E.R. 525 : 113 R.R. 199, and In ex parte Norfolk (1815) 19 Ves. Jun . 454 : 34 E.R. 585 they are en...
M. Subramiah Vs. Bansilal Abeerchand and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad595
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition in Insolvency, made on behalf of some Cuddappah creditors of the 1st insolvent, who claimed that as far as the assets of the Cuddappah business were concerned, they were entitled to priority, over the Madras creditors, who, they alleged, were creditors of the two insolvents in partnership in Madras. The learned Judge has found as a fact that in respect of the Madras business, the Madras creditors did not know that the second insolvent was a partner but treated him only as an agent of the firm and that therefore they are entitled to prove, in competition with the Cuddappah creditors, against what may be called the Cuddappah assets. Assuming that the finding was open to him and that it was a correct finding of fact, then on the authority of the old English cases, In Ex parte Hodgkinson (1815) 19 Ves. 296 and In Ex parte Norfolk 19 Ves. 454, they are entitled to elect as to which assets, they will go against, the general a...
Ratnam Pillai and anr. Vs. Nataraja Desikar (Deceased) Annamalai Desik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.200; (1924)46MLJ341
Waller, J.1. The facts appear to be this. Nataraja was in 1914 declared by the High Court to be a trespasser. He appealed and the High Court's decision was upheld by the Privy Council in 1920. In that interval in 1919 he had filed this suit as head of the Mutt. After the Privy Council's judgment Annamalai who has now been brought on the record as plaintiff was elected head of the Mutt. Some time afterwards Nataraja died and in 1921 (1922) Annamalai applied to be brought on record as his legal representative. This application was granted and the order granting it has been brought up in revision.2. It is now argued that Order 22 Rule 3 does not apply. It does not follow, however, that because an application has been made and granted under a wrong rule, respondent cannot be brought on record under the proper rule if any rule is applicable to his case.3. On the whole 1 see no reason why Annamalai should not be allowed to continue the suit under Order 22, Rule 10. Nataraja sued on behalf of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›