Chennai Court March 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 Secretary, Board of Revenue (income-tax) Vs. the Madras Export Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad422; 76Ind.Cas.375
ORDERWalter Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from a decision of this Court on a reference to it under Section 51 of the Income-Tax Act VII of 1918. The question involved in this reference is a difficult and important point of law of very great and general importance. I am, therefore, prepared to certify that, although the actual amount involved in this reference is only about Rs. 6,000, the case is a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council, provided that we have the power to certify, that is, provided that appeal lies. This depends on whether our decision in this case is a 'final judgment' of the High Court either in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction or extraordinary original civil juris- diction; or in its appellate jurisdiction, because under Clause 39 of the Letters Patent it is only on these matters that an appeal lies. I agree that there is no inherent right of appeal and that unless such right is conferred by the Letters ...
Meenakshi Vethiar Amma Vs. Cheriya Parvathi Nethiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.1012
1. In accordance with the opinion of .the, Full Bench we proceed to deal with the merits, The first, ground on which the appeal has been argued is, that the, case which, the District ,Munsif, and the lower Appellate, Court eventually considered and on which they decided; against the 14th defendant-appellant was not that relied on by the, plaintiff, in the plaint and that on this account the 14th defendant was greatly prejudiced and refrained form giving evidence on facts; which weighed materially with the lower, Appellate Court.2. The plaintiff's case as set out among the charges in paragraph II(C) of the plaint, was that the first defendant joined a kuri on behalf of the tevali, gave the amount on his prize to and got executed, a panyon deed, Exhibit XVI, by defendants Nos. 11 to 13 in favour; of the 14th defendant his daughter, instead of getting it in his own name and that the tevali has a right to recover, this amount thus, lent, the, 14th defendant having no right; to it., The rel...
The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Income Tax Vs. the Madras Export Comp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad63
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from a decision of this Court on a reference to it, under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act, VII of 1918. The question involved in this reference is a dim cult and important point of law of very great and general importance. I am therefore prepared to certify that although the actual amount involved in this reference is only about Rs. 6,000, the case is a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council, provided that we have the power to certify, that is, provided an appeal lies. This depends on whether our decision in this case is a final judgment of the High Court either in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, or extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, or in its Appellate Jurisdiction, because under Clause 39 of the Letters Patent it is only on these matters that an appeal lies. I agree that there is no inherent right of appeal and that unless such right is conferred by the Letters Patent or by statut...
Meenakshi Nethiar Amma Vs. Cheriya Parvati Nethiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad174
Oldfield, J.1. In accordance with the opinion of the Full Bench we proceed to deal with the merits. The first ground on which the appeal has been argued is that the case, which the District Munsif and the lower appellate Court eventually considered and on which they decided against the 14th defendant, appellant was not that relied on by the plaintiff in the plaint and that on this account the 14th defendant was greatly prejudiced and refrained from giving evidence on facts which weighed materially with the lower appellate Court.2. The plaintiff's case as set out among the charges in paragraph 11 (c) of the plaint was that the 1st defendant joined a Kuri on behalf of the tavali, gave the amount of his prize to and got executed a panayam deed Ex-XVI by defendants 11 to 13 in favour of the 14th defendant, his daughter, instead of geting it in his own name, and that the tavali has a right to recover this amount thus lent, the 14th defendant having no right to it. The relief asked for in th...
E.T. Dharma Raja Vs. K.M. Pethur Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ212
Ayling, J.1. The dispute which has given rise to the pre sent litigation is in connection with a channel, which is claimed by the appellants to be a poromboke channel feeding the Kari salkulam tank which irrigates their lands, but which the res pondents, who were plaintiffs in the first Court, claim to be a portion of their patta lands and to have no connection at all with Karisalkulam tank. The suits were brought to establish the rights of the plaintiffs in the channel and to prevent inter ference by Government, who are impleaded under the designa tion of the Secretary of State as the first defendant, as well as by the other defendants, who are pattadars holding lands irrigated by the Karisalkulam Tank. In the first Court, the plain tiffs were successful and were granted the reliefs prayed for by them. Government did not appeal, holding, as is now ex plained by the learned Government Pleader, that their interest were not sufficiently involved in the matter to make it worth their while...
Bava Levvai Sahib and ors. Vs. Ammeenammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad107; 79Ind.Cas.968; (1923)45MLJ805
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is against the final decree passed in a partnership suit. The course of the proceedings before the District Munsif was that, after the preliminary decree had been passed, the scope of the enquiry was defined in an order dated 25-9-1916 and the suit was then posted for evidence.2. On the date, to which it was adjourned, the 1st defendant did not appear to adduce his evidence; and the District Munsif declared him ex parte. A decree was afterwards given on the basis of the evidence adduced by the other parties to the proceedings; and against that decree there was an appeal to the Lower Appellate Court, by the 1st plaintiff. There was also a memorandum of objections by the 1st defendant, in which he complained inter alia of his having been debarred from producing evidence. The lower appellate Court held that his absence on the date of hearing was sufficiently explained and the District Munsif's order placing him ex parte and excluding his evidence was not justifi...
Nagappa Chetty Vs. Muthuraman Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad158
1. We have heard arguments in this case at considerable length both as to the age of the appellant and also on the law applicable to the case, as it was presented to the lower Court, on the footing that the execution proceedings and the sale went through without his being impleaded as a major, although be had become a major, prior to the date on which the sale was held. We, however, need not deal at length with those arguments, because two other considerations, to which apparently the lower Court attached very little weight, are in our opinion decisive.2. The argument that the appellant ought to have had notice and that the failure to give him notice entitles him to have the sale set aside can only hold good, if he is entitled to notice under some provision of law. The provision relied on is Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The argument for the appellant proceeded on the footing that either because more than one year had elapsed between the various applications for exe...
Venkalakshmi Ammal Vs. Sadasiva Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.861
1. The appellant's case is that at the time of making her present application for execution she was not in possession of the first set of suit properties, and if that case is true and if the appellant's prior application for possession, was ineffective, there is no reason why she should not now apply for execution of the decree. Even if she had got possession in execution of the original decree, and if subsequently she was wrongly dispossessed before the final decree of the Appellate Court restored the original decree of the District Munsif, she would, on the authority of Theevana Pillai v. Kulla Pillai 5 Ind. Cas 776 : 7 M.L.T. 107 be entitled to apply for delivery of possession a second time.2. The grounds upon which her execution petitions have been dismissed are not sound. The appeal is allowed and the case will go back to the Executing Court for enquiry whether on the date of the present application for execution the execution petitioner was in actual possession or not of the firs...
E.T. Dharma Raja Vs. K.M. Pethu Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.4
1. The dispute which has given rise to the present litigation is in connection with a channel, which is claimed by the appellants to be a poromboke channel feeding the Karisakulam Tank which irrigated their lands but which the respondents, who were plaintiffs in the First Court, claim to be a portion of their ftatta lands and to have no connection at all with Karisakulam Tank. The suits were brought to establish the rights of the plaintiffs in the channel and to prevent interference by Government, who are impleaded under the designation of the Secretary of State as the first defendant, as well as by the other defendants, who are pattadars holding lands irrigated by the Karisakulam Tank, in the First Court the plaintiffs were successful and were granted the reliefs prayed for by them. Government did not appeal, folding, as is now explained by the learned Government Pleader, that their interests were not sufficiently involved in the matter to make it worth their while to contest the decr...
The M. and S.M. Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Rangaswamy Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.537
Phillips, J.1. So far as the goods bought from Kaveri Chetty are concerned, it is obvious that plaintiffs can claim no damages and this is practically conceded in argument. Under Section 91 of the Indian Contract Act the other goods had been delivered to Munisami Chetty and properties in them had passed to him. Plaintiffs in consigning the goods, some of which had never been their property, only acted as Munisami's agents. If the property had passed from plaintiffs they have sustained no loss by the non-delivery of the goods and consequently no damages. Dawes v. Peck (1799) 8 T.R. 330 : 3 Esp. 121 : 101 E.R. 1417 is authority for hoding that consignee alone can sue in such a case and it does not seem |o me that Section 72(3) of the Indian Railways Act has any application here for the responsibility of the Railway Company is not affected, but that responsibility is to the consignee and not to his agent, the consignor.2. The petition is allowed and plaintiff's suit is dismissed with cost...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »