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.
K.P.S. Karuthan Chettiar Vs. B.M.M. Raman Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad185; 80Ind.Cas.376
ORDER1. The application has been made nearly 3 years after the order sought to be appealed against was passed.2. It is contended that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act cannot he applied, because Section 78 of Act V of 1920 conferred a new right after the inception of these insolvency proceedings. We consider that this section did not create for the first time or take away any substantive right, but that it merely regulated the procedure applicable to appeals and applications under the Provincial Insolvency Act.3. We have, therefore, power to excuse delay, and the fact that leave to appeal was not necessary under the old Act (III of 1907) is a sufficient reason for doing so.4. Leave to appeal is granted under Section 75(3) of Act V of 1920....
Kolluri Venkataratnam Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.1006
1. One Maradugual Venkataratnam applied to be declared insolvent on the 24th of March 1910 and be was adjudicated an insolvent on the 31st August 1912... within Jthjee' souths; of the petition in insolvency, the house which is the subject of, this appeal, was nominally transferred for Rs. 4,000 on the 4th of January 1910 to One Perrazu, who is the second respondent. Admittedly, the consideration for this sale rem lined unpaid. On the 22nd of August, 1912, the same property was sold to the appellant, for the same price of Rs. 4,000 by the second respondent. There was a composition of the claims of the creditors, approved by the District Court upon which the D strict Court annulled the adjudication, on the 19th December 1912. There wis an appeal to the High Court, the result of which wis that the adjudication was restored on the 24th of March 19142. The lower Court has found that the transaction, by which the appellant purchased the house in question, was voidable, under Section 53 of Ac...
Rukmani Ammal Vs. Muthuswami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1923
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.747
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been fined Rs. 50 (Sub-Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cuddalore, in C.C. No. 108 and C.A. No. 66 of 1924) for criminally misappropriating an agricultural engine valued at Rs. 2,000. Admittedly he borrowed this engine under Ex. A from his relation Muthuswami Reddi, P.W. No. 1, who says that he was looking after it for the real owner Muthuawami Reddi, P.W. No. 4. The petitioner says that he also had a lease of the engine from Muthuswami Reddi Ex. IT, which the lower Appellate Court seems prepared to concede, para. 4. The alleged breach of trust was the sale of this engine by petitioner to his aunt, the wife of Muthuswami Reddi's brother, D.W. No. 1. This witness says that the engine is family property. He is disbelieved but unles3 the lower Courts accepted some theory of a family quarrel it is difficult to understand why they inflicted such paltry sentences. The Sub-Magistrate fined the petitioner Rs. 100 which the Sub-Divisional Magistr...
K. Venkataratnam Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad358
1. One Maradugula Venkataratnam applied to be declared insolvent, on the 24th of March, 1910, and he was adjudicated as an insolvent on the 31st of August, 1912. Within three months of the petition in insolvency, the house, which is the subject of this appeal, was nominally transferred for Rs. 4,000, on the 4th of January, 1910, to one Perrazu, who is the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the consideration for this sale remained unpaid. On the 22nd of August, 1912, the same property was sold to the appellant, for the same price of Rs. 4,000, by the 2nd respondent. There was a composition of the claims of the creditors, approved by the District Court, upon which the District Court annulled the adjudication, on the 19th December, 1912. There was an appeal to the High Court, the result of which was-that the adjudication was restored on the 24th of March, 1914.2. The Lower Court has found that the transaction, by which the appellant purchased the house in question, was voidable,, under Section 5...
K.P.S. Karuthian Chettiar Vs. R.M.M. Raman Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad400(1)
ORDER1. The application has been made nearly 3 years after the order sought to be appealed against was passed. It is contended that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act cannot be applied, because Section 78 of Act V of 1920 conferred a new right after the inception of these insolvency proceedings. We consider that this section did not create for the first time or take away any substantive right, but that it merely regulated the procedure applicable to appeals and applications under the Provincial Insolvency Act. We have therefore power to accuse the delay and the fact that leave to appeal was not necessary under the old Act (III of 1907) is a sufficient reason for doing so.2. Leave to appeal is granted under Section 75(3) of Act V of 1920....
The Vizagapatam Sugar Development Company Limited, by Its Reputed Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad271; 76Ind.Cas.886; (1923)45MLJ528
1. The facts relevant to the answer of the question propounded to us in this case can be very briefly stated. The predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff, in return for the allotment to him of a number of shares in the Vizagapatam Sugar Development Company, Limited, handed over certain lands, theretofore his property, to the company for the purpose of their business in the year 1907. No registered sale deed was ever executed embodying the transaction, but the company has been in possession of the lands ever since that date. It is now sought to recover these lands on the ground that no title passed to the company in the absence of a registered document. Two main answers were made; first, that as the defendant Company had a valid contract enforceable by specific performance, they could rely upon that by way of defence to the suit; secondly, that they could rely on their possession as such part performance of the contract as would take it out of the operation of the statute. There can be no...
In Re: Basireddi Narappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.642; (1923)45MLJ613
1. In this case the appellant, the 1st accused in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1922 before the Sessions Judge of Anantapur, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of the murder of one Vodde Chinnagadu, a servant in his house, on the night of the 20th of May, 1922 and sentenced to transportation for life.2. There were three accused originally but accused 2 and 3 have been acquitted by the learned Judge. Before we consider the evidence in the case, it will be convenient to deal with a preliminary point which has been raised in the case based upon what is called the tender of a pardon to this accused.3. It is contended for the accused by his learned pleader that the pardon was not properly forfeited or cancelled and that it was an obstacle in the way of his having been tried, as he has been, along with the other accused. But, in the circumstances of the case, we think such a pardon will not be a proper objection to the trial. What happened was that this accused promised at first to make a...
In Re: Thaikkottathil Kunhaeen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.644
ORDERRamesam, J.1. The petitioners in this case (Accused Nos. 4 to 9, 11, 12, 14 15, 16, 19 to 21, 23 to 27) were convicted along with others, under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, and Section 126 of the Railways act.2. The propriety of the conviction under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, has not been questioned before us. As to the other it was contended before us that the conviction is erroneous as no specific acts on the part of the accused in respect of the Railway line have been proved. The prosecution evidence merely amounts to this, viz., that the accused were members of a large mob of abort 500 Moplahs some of whom (not identified with the accused) removed rails from the line, damaged the points and signals and out the wires of the bock system.3. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the conviction is right, if considered as one under Section 126 of the Railways Act read along with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. Assuming this contention may be ultimately upheld though it...
Basireddi Narappa Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad391
1. In this case the appellant;, the 1st accused in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1922 before the Sessions Judge of Ananthapur, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge Of the murder of one Vodde Chinnagadu, a servant in his house, on the night of the 20th of May 1922 and sentenced to transportation for life.2. There were three accused originally but accused 2 and 3 have been acquitted by the learned Judge. Before we consider the evidence in the case, it will be convenient to deal with a preliminary point which has been raised in the case based upon what is called the tender of a pardon to this accused.3. It is contended for the accused by his learned pleader that the pardon was not properly forfeited or cancelled and that it was an obstacle in the way of his having been tried, as he has been along with the other accused. But, in the circumstances of the case we think such a pardon will not be a proper objection to the trial. What happened was that this accused promised at first to make a ...
In Re: Thaikkottathil Kunheen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad338
Ramesam, J.1. The petitioners in this case (accused 4 to 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19 to 21, 23 to 27) were convicted, along with others, under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, and Section 126 of the Railways Act.2. The propriety of the conviction under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, has not been questioned before us. As to the other, it was contended before us that the conviction is erroneous, as no specific acts on the part of the accused, in respect of the railway line have been proved. The prosecution evidence merely amounts to this, viz., that the accused were members of a large mob of about 500 Moplahs, some of whom (not identified with the accused) removed rails from the line, damaged the points and signals and cut the wires of the block system.3. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the conviction is right, it considered as one under Section 126 of the Railways Act, read along with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. Assuming this contention may be ultimately upheld, though it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »