Chennai Court August 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.
Ponnuswami Iyer and ors. Vs. K. Ganapathi Iyer, Sub Divisional Magistr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ742
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application of a somewhat unusual kind. I have been asked to commit to prison Mr. K. Ganapati Iyer, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram, for his wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated the 10th April, 1923. In C.C. No. 50 of 1922 pending before the said Magistrate, an application was made by some of the accused for examination as a witness of the Pandarasannadhi of Thiruvaduthurai Mutt. That application was refused by the Magistrate by his order dated the 6th April, 1923. On the, same day the parties applied for a copy of the order and the stamp papers were called for on the 9th April. They were furnished immediately, and the parties were granted the copy at 7 p.m. on the 9th. On the, 10th, a revision case was filed in the High Court impeaching the correctness of the order of the 6th and on the application of the accused at about 2-15 p.m. on the same day, I made an order staying further proceedings in C.C. No. 50 of 1922 pending t...
K.C. Manavikraman Alias Anujan Raja Averghal Vs. N.C. Ananthanarayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ250
1. In O.S. No. 6 of 1919 a decree for redemption of a kanom demise was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam on March 5, 1920. An execution petition was filed on August 6, 1920 for having a re-valuation made of the improvements and for delivery of the property. On the 1st October, 1920 the place where the mortgaged property was situated was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Ottapalam Subordinate Judge's Court to that of the Palghat Subordinate Judge's Court. The Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam disposed of the execution petition, and, in the course of so doing, he ordered on the 16th December, 1920 that there should be a re-valuation of the property, and on the nth April, 1921 he ordered that a warrant for delivery of the property should be issued returnable on the 21st June, 1921, and he adjourned the further hearing of the petition for disposal of other matters referred to therein.2. On appeal to the District Judge an objection was taken for the first time to the jurisdic...
In Re: A.E. Smith
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.72; (1923)45MLJ731
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the Third Presidency Magistrate convicting the accused for not taking out a license under Section 288 of the Madras City Municipalities Act, IV of 1919, for a soda water machinery which he has recently started working in No.50, Thatha Muthiappan Street. The machiner was originally installed in No. 17 Jone's Street, andthe accused obtained the permission of the Comissioner to use the machineryin its new place, but he had not obtained any license under Section 288 forthe purpose of erecting the machinery in that place. The accused has been fined Rs. 5 for this offence and directed to pay the license fee of Rs. 200 to the Municipality.2. It is argued before me as the first point that, the accused having been allowed to use the machinery in Jone's Street, and it having been merely transferred to the new place, he could not be asked to pay any new license feefor erecting the machinery there. I do not agree with this contenti...
Ponnuswamy Aiyar and ors. Vs. K. Ganapathi Iyer, Sub-divisional Magist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.241
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application of a somewhat unusual kind. I have been asked to commit to prison Mr. K; Ganapathi Aiyar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram, for his wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated the 10th April 1923. In C.C. No. 50 of 1922 pending before the said Magistrate, an application was made by some of the accused for examinalion as a witness of the Pandarasannadhi of Thiruvaduthurai Mutt. That application was refused by the Magistrate by his order dated the 6th April 1923. On the same day the parties applied for a copy of the order and the stamp papers were called for on the 9th April. They were furnished immediately, and the parties were granted the copy at 7 P.M. on the 9th. On the 10th, a revision case was filed in the High Court, impeaching the correctness of the order of the 6th and on the application of the accused at about 2-15 P.M. on the same day, I made an order staying further proceedings in C.C. No. 50 of 1922 pending the di...
K.C. Manavikraman Alias Anjun Raja Avergal Vs. N.C. Ananthanarayana Ay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.806
1. In O.S. No. 6 of 1919, a decree for redemption of a kanom demise was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, on March 5th, 1920. An execution petition was filed on August 6th, 1920, for having a revaluation made of the improvements and for delivery of the property. On the 1st October, 1920, the place where the mortgaged property was situated, was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Ottapalam Subordinate Judge's Court, to that of the Palghat Subordinate Judge's Court. The Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam disposed of the execution petition, and ID the course of so doing, he ordered on the 16th December, 1920, that there should be a re-valuation of the property, and on the April, 1921, he ordered that a warrant for delivery of the property should be issued, returnable on the 21st June 1921, and he adjourned the further hearing of the petition for disposal of other matters referred to therein.2. On appeal to the District Judge, an objection was taken for the first time to the j...
The Secretary, Borad of Revenue, Land Revenue and Settlement (income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad205
Schwabe, C.J.1. This case is referred under the Income Tax Act by the Board of Revenue for the opinion of the High Court. The question relates to the assessment for income tax of the firm known as B. Muniswami Chetty and Son, and there are two distinct points referred.2. B. Muniswami Chetty and Son carry on a business in piece-goods, the partners in the firm B. Damodaram Chetty and P.V. Ramanujam Chetty, Damodaram Chetty baring a much larger share. On the facts as now found it is clear that that firm engaged in business with other partners in two other firms, one called the Carnatic Import Company and the other B. Damodaram Chetty & Co., whose businesses were of an allied character in that they dealt in goods similar to those dealt in by Muniswami Chetty & Son. B. Muniswami Chetty & Son had a much larger share in those other two firms, there being in each case a partner with a small share to encourage him to take a real interest in the management of the business. In the year of assessm...
Ponnuswami Aiyar and ors. Vs. K. Ganapathi Aiyar, Sub-divisional Magis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad393
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application of a somewhat unusual kind. I have been asked to commit to prison Mr. K. Ganapati Aiyar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram, for his wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated the 10th April, 1923. In C.C. No. 50 of 1922 pending before the said Magistrate, an application was made by some of the accused for examination as a witness of the Pandarasannadhi of Thiruvaduthurai Mutt. That application was refused by the Magistrate by his order, dated the 6th April, 1923. On the same day the parties applied for a copy of the order and the stamp papers were called for on the 9th April. They were furnished immediately, and the parties were granted the copy at 7 p.m. on the 9th. On the 10th, a revision ease was filed in the High Court impeaching the correctness of the order of the 6th and on the application of the accused at about 2-15 p.m. on the same day, I made an order staying further proceedings in C.O. No. 50 of 1922 pending ...
K.C. Manavikraman Vs. N.C. Ananthanarayana Ayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad457
1. In O.S. No. 6 of 1919, a decree for redemption of a kanom demise was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam on March, 5th, 1920. An execution petition was filed on August, 6th, 1920, for having a re-valuation made of the improvements and for delivery of the property. On the 1st October, 1920, the place, where the mortgaged property was situated, was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Ottapalam Subordinate Judge's Court, to that of the Palghat Subordinate Judge's Court. The Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam disposed of the execution petition and in the course of so doing, he ordered on the 16th December, 1920, that there should be a re-valuation of the property, and on the 11th April, 1921, he ordered that a warrant for delivery of the property should be issued, returnable on the 21st June, 1921, and he adjourned the further bearing of the petition for disposal of other matters referred to therein.2. On appeal to the District Judge, an objection was taken for the first time ...
T.R. Tawker and Sons Vs. Harsookdoss Choughmull
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad386; 76Ind.Cas.124; (1923)45MLJ611
1. This matter comes before us on a petition for stay of the sale of property pending appeal from an interlocutory order of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., who, acting under Rule 206 of the Original Side Rules, had to determine in Chambers certain questions as to the advertisement of some moveable property taken in execution and as to reserve prices to be put upon the articles. The execution debtor is not satisfied with the order and the directions given. Therefore, he brings this appeal.2. A preliminary point is taken that no appeal lies. An appeal lies under the Letters Patent from all judgments given on the Original Side of this Court. The question is whether this order is a judgment. Rule 206 of the Original Side Rules corresponds to Order 21, Rule 66 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Sivagami Achi v. Subramania Iyer I.L.R. 27 M. 259 that matters of this kind determined by Judges under that order or the corresponding sections of the former C...
Aburubammal Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ817
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The Chief Justice: By an agreement in writing dated the 2nd August, 1921 the insolvent purported to give to the garnishee his motor car as security for an advance by her to him of Rs. 3,000. It was a term of the agreement that the insolvent should have the right to use the car and should keep it in good order, and deliver it up on demand. He also agreed that, if he exercised any acts of ownership over the car, he should be criminally liable, a stipulation which can have no effect in law.2. The other relevant facts arc that the loan was also secured by a joint promissory note of the insolvent and another renewed on November 9, 1921 to the end of January, 1922, and that by a letter dated February 10, 1922 from her Vakil, she demanded from the insolvent under threat of criminal proceedings that the car should be returned to her. The commencement of the insolvency was in May, 1922.3. On these facts it is contended by the Official Assignee that he is entit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »