Chennai Court February 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.
Rajagopala Ayyangar Vs. Ramanuja Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.459
1. That the general course of the proceedings in this case has teen deplorable will to clear, when it is stated that, although they began in 1914, they still are not within measurable distance of any conclusion. We, however, are particularly concerned only with the order which we are asked to revise and which was passed on 30th October 1922.2. The facts, shortly, are that much earlier in the case the. defendants in response to the plaintiff's petition for discovery produced certain accounts and at a later date produced further accounts, Those accounts were before the Court, and the suit being for an account of the profits of properties which had been in the possession of the defendants and their father, they would have been most material in arriving at the amount to which the plaintiffs were entitled. The plaintiff having inspected the accounts, brought to the notice of the lower Court, that they did not admit their genuineness or completeness. The case standing thus, the lower Court h...
E.A. Janu Sait Vs. N. Ramaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad626; 72Ind.Cas.735
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant are both merchants of Negapatarn and the plaintiff entered into a contract for the purchase of rice from the defendant en the terms of Exhibits A and Ai. At the time when the contract was entered into, namely, July 19, the import of rice was controlled by Government and rules were framed in accordance with which alone import and transport of rice was permitted. The defendant obtained a license from Government to import certain rice from Burma and it was this rice which he agreed to sell to the plaintiff. The nee was delivered to the plaintiff, but, shortly afterwards, 2123 bags were commandeered by Government and the plaintiff received only the actual controlled price, whereas he had paid to the defendant a considerably larger sum. The balance of 1320 bags had already been re-sold by the plaintiff and Government took no _ action in regard to them. The plaintiff now claims damages for loss that he has sustained by this action on the part of...
Nambia Pillai Vs. Sudalaimuthu Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad595; 76Ind.Cas.872; (1923)44MLJ642
ORDERSpencer, J.1. It is argued on the authority of the decision of Ayling J. in Criminal Revision Case No. 328 of 1922 that the District Magistrate had no power to stay the trial of a Criminal Case in the Court of a Subordinate Magistrate in his District.2. It is undeniable that the High Court is under the Government of India Act invested with powers of superintendence over all the Courts of justice in the Presidency and it has been held in Anna Ayyar v. Emperor I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 226, that those powers include a power to direct 'the stay of proceedings in such Courts.3. Section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which declares all Magistrates and Benches of Magistrates in any District to be Subordinate to the District Magistrate of that District who is invested with powers to make rules and give special orders and Rule 122 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which treats of his powers of supervision over their Magisterial work, suggest that a District Magistrate has wide powers of s...
Poochammal Vs. Sundarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad617
Spencer, O.C.J.1. This is a suit by a reversioner to obtain a declaration that the Court sale in favour of the 2nd defendant of certain properties which belonged to the reversioner's father and the subsequent sale by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant are not for purposes binding on the estate and are not valid after the death of the 1st defendant her' stepmother who is alleged in the plaint to have got a suit instituted by the 2nd defendant her maternal uncle who is also husband of her sister. The District Munsi dismissed the suit; on the issue as to limitation without trying the, other issues, and the District Judge confirmed his decree. The grounds given by the District Judge for holding that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 125 is that the decree and sale sought to be declared invalid were preceded in 1905 by a mortgage and that the sale in execution cannot be taken as the starting point for limitation when there is a previous mortgage upon which the decree was ob...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›