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.
Nayakammal Vs. S. Munusami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad819; 84Ind.Cas.231
Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the property mentioned in the plaint belongs to her, for possession of the property from the defendant, for the recovery of arrears of, rent and for mesne profits.2. The plaint as amended sets out that the property set out in the plaint belonged to one Sandar Ramalinga Mudaliar who died on the 15th of December 1903, leaving a daughter Gnanasundarammal who obtained Letters of Administration on the 14th of March 1905, such letters being granted after contest by the reversioners, that by a registered deed of release dated the 9th of December 1905, the reversioners, to the estate including the defendant's father who also represented the defendant released their interest in the properties left by Ramalinga Mudaliar in favour of his daughter Gnanasundarammal, that Gnanasundarammal transferred, the suit property to one Samarapuri Mudaliar on the 21st of February 1910 by a deed which, though called a deed of gift w...
Anglo Persian Oil, Co, Ltd. Vs. P. S. Panchapakesa Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.1011
Walter Sales Schwabe, C.J. 1. This is an interlocutory appeal from the order of jimaraswami Sastriar, J., refusing to stay an action on an application made under the Arbitration act, the suit being on a contract which contains an arbitration clause referring any question or dispute which may arise under the contract to two European merchants resident in Mad and in the event of their disagreeing to an umpire chosen by the arbitrators before commencing the reference.2. The view expressed by the learned Judge in his judgment is that as the defendants had been threatened with legal proceedings for a considerable time and had not then called the attention of the plaintiffs to the arbitration clause or said that they were willing to refer to arbitration and objected to the litigation, that is a ground for refusing to stay on an application on the part of the defendants after the action was brought. I do not agree. The re is no authority in support of the proposition which has been adduced be...
B.V. Satyanarayana Varaprasad Rao Vs. B.V. Bhashyakarulu Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad399
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, against an order passed by one of as, sitting as a single Judge, under Section 116 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. That order confirmed the order of the lower Court and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed in this Court. The present petitioner, who was the petitioner in the Revision Petition has applied to us to grant him leave to appeal to the Privy Council.2. A preliminary objection is taken to this application, on the ground that Section 111, Civil Procedure Code, bars any such application. Section 111 says, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 109, no appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council, among other things, from the decree or order of one Judge of a High Court established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861. This is manifestly an application for an appeal from such an order. It is difficult to see bow the petitioner can escape the obstacle p...
Vemuri Pitchayya Vs. Srimath Raja Yarlagadda Ankineedu Bahadur Zaminda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ651
Spencer, J.1. As the suit is one of a small cause nature and the claim is valued at Rs. 388 and odd, no second appeal lies even in the matter of execution Vide Mavula Ammal v. Mavula Maracayar 17 M.L.J. 376.2. We are asked to treat the appeal as a revision petition and to revise the order which directs execution to proceed against the appellant's immoveable properties on the ground that when the execution application was presented, no schedule of immoveable property belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached to it as prescribed by Order 21, Rule 13, and that by the time this omission was supplied, 12 years had expired from the date of the decree and execution had become barred under Section 48, C.P.C.3. Order 21, Rule 17, C.P.C. declares that on receiving an application for execution, the Court shall ascertain whether the requirements of Rule 13 among others have been complied with, may either reject the application or fix a time for the defect to be remedied. Clause 2 states that i...
In Re: K.V.S. Ramachandra Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad375; 75Ind.Cas.691; (1923)45MLJ555
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This case raises the question of the construction of Section 249 of Madras District Municipalities Act V of 1920 taken with Clause (q) of Schedule 5. The accused keeps a rice mill for converting paddy into raw rice, within three miles of the municipal limits of Rajahmundry. A notification was issued under Section 249 of that Act and as the result of that the parties doing anything for one or more of the purposes specified in Schedule 5 were obliged to take out licenses from the Chairman. The accused has been convicted for not taking out a license accordingly for his rice mill with the time allowed.2. It is argued before me that the conviction is wrong as accused's mill was not used for any of the purposes mentioned in Schedule 5. The points turns on how Clause (q) of Schedule 5. is to be construed, particularly on whether the last words of it 'which is likely to be dangerous to human life or health or property' is to be read as qualifying the last clause 'any indust...
Vemuri Pitchayya Vs. Ankineedu Bahadur Zemindar Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad367; 76Ind.Cas.750
Spencer, J.1. As the suit is one of a Small Cause nature and the claim is valued at Rs. 388 and odd, no second appeal lies even in the matter of execution [vide Mavula Ammal v. Mavula Maracoir 30 M. 212 : 17 M.L.J. 376].2. We are asked to treat the appeal a as revision petition and to revise the order which directs execution to proceed against the appellant's immoveable properties on the ground that when the execution application was presented, no schedule of immoveable property belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached to it as prescribed by Order XXI, Rule 13, and that by the time this omission was supplied, 12 years had expired from.the date, of, the decree and execution had become barred under Section 48, Civil Procedure Code.3. Order XXI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, declares that, on receiving an application for execution, the Court shall ascertain whether the requirements of Rule 13 among others have been complied with and if they have not been complied with may either rej...
Gopobondhu Behara Vs. D. Venkatesam Pantulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.1030
Krishnan, J.1. It is not denied that so far as this application is for getting a further enquiry ordered it was open to the petitioner to go to the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. That being so, even though this Court has concurrent jurisdiction in the matter, I think, it is a right course to adopt, to insist on the party exhausting all his remedies in an inferior Court before he comes up to this Court. See the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. Abdus Sobhan 2 Ind. Cas. 846 : 36 C. 643 : 13 C.W.N. 733 : 10 CrI. L.J. 190, and by the Allahabad High Court in Sharif Ahmad v. Qabul Singh 63 Ind. Cas. 875 : 43 A. 407 : 19 A.L.J 425 : 3 U.P.L.r.77 : Cri. L.J. 715. The petition, therefore, so far as it asks for further enquiry is dismissed. The petitioner may, if so advised, move the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. As regards the order for compensation, no doubt it has been held that this Court alone can revise it. But as the order on the petition for fur...
G.G. Jeremiah Vs. W.H. Johnson
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad373; 76Ind.Cas.695; (1923)45MLJ800
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case the petitioner one Mr. Jeremiah of the Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, was convicted of the offence of defamation under Section 500, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 by the 1st class Second Magistrate of that station; and his conviction was confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of the same station and application is made to this Court to revise the judgments of these two Courts and to hold that there was no case against the petitioner under Section 500, I.P.C.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of his case by this Court on the ground that the proper tribunal to hear it is not this Court but the Resident's Court at Bangalore. It may be stated that Mr. Jeremiah claims to be a European British subject but he did not claim to be dealt with as such by the Magistrate before whom he was tried. He waived his claim under Section 454, Criminal Procedure Code. The question whether he is really a European British subject or...
C.K. Subramania Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Parsuramier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad644; 79Ind.Cas.953
1. We feel constrained to interfere with the District Judge's order granting leave for the institution of a suit in the form in which that leave has been given, as it appears that he has not exercised the power conferred on him by Section 18 of Act XX of 1863 in the manner contemplated by that provision of law.2. The allegations are extremely vague and indefinite and the charges 2 to 10 as to breach of trust are no more specific than the respondents accusations. The sums of money kept uninvested in 1st counter-petitioner's hands, or lent to strangers, other sums said to be unaccounted for, the items of temple property dealt with contrary to the interests of the trust are not specified, with the consequence that the suit may be based on charges which have not been clearly made the subject of the order. The giving of sanction against any or all of the respondents, leaving the petitioners to choose which of them they will proceed against, is also improper as it supplies the petitioners wi...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Pachappa Mudalia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad397; 75Ind.Cas.760
Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 1923. (C.C. No. 2 of 1923).Krishnan, J.1. The accused has been prosecuted by the Union Board of Arni under Section 129 of the Madras Local Boards Act, XIV of 1920, for having allowed his sewage water to run over the adjoining Union road The Magistrate has found that the sewage water runs into the street and that apparently it gets into of a drain on the other side of the street, because the Magistrate says that there is a drain on the side of the street opposite to where the accused's house stands. The Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that he cannot he expected to construct a culvert or a channel to let the sewage water from his house to flow into the opposite channel without spreading into the street. The Magistrate thinks that it is the duty of the Union to construct such a channel and as they have not done so, the accused must be acquitted.2. Now, my attention has not been drawn to any section in the Madras Local Boards Act which imposes ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »