Chennai Court September 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.
Hajee Shakoor Gani Vs. T.S. Sabapathy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad236; (1923)45MLJ749
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This case, which is a test case, raises an interesting question as to the true meaning of Section 10 of the Tariff Act now in force, Act VIII of 1894 as amended by Act IV of 1916.2. The facts of the case are quite simple. The plaintiff entered into a contract in December 1922 for the purchase by him from the defendant of certain Java sugar to arrive by a named ship due somewhere about the end of the year at a price working out at about Rs. 20 a cwt., 'ex godown.' At the time of the contract duty was payable on sugar at 25 per cent, on what is known as the 'tariff value.' This tariff value is fixed annually in practice, though by this Statute Section 3(2) 'the Governor-General in Council may, by notification fix, for the purpose of levying duties, the tariff values of any articles enumerated in the Schedules, 'and no time is fixed for the issuing of such notifications. In this case the tariff value has, in fact, been fixed about a year previously at Rs...
The Vizagapatam Sugar Development Co. Ltd., by Its Reputed Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.894; (1923)45MLJ826
1. It is now contended by Mr. Naryanamurthi that the applicability of the doctrine of part performance is limited to cases where the right to sue for specific performance is not barred on the date of the subsequent suit and he relies en Gazendranath Dey v. Moulvi Ashraf Hossain (1922) 27 C.W.N. 159 and Shy am Kishore v. Dineschandra (1919) 31 C.L.J. 75.2. In neither case was this question specifically considered whereas in Mehar Ali Khan v. Aratunnessa Bibi (1919) 25 C.W.N. 905 there is a decision of a single Judge to the contrary. We can find no such limitation in any of the judgments of the Privy Council cited, and to impose such a limitation would in effect, confine the equity to cases in which the party had a subsisting legal right, which he could enforce, and consequently be a denial of justice in other cases. This is hardly consistent with the doctrines of equity and we are not prepared to accept this plea.3. In the result this appeal is allowed and plaintiff's suit dismissed wit...
Narayanasami Chetty Vs. Vellaya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad688
1. The District Munsif's action in dismissing the mortgagee-decree-holder's execution petition because he sought to bring only the second item to sale cannot be supported. A decree-holder is entitled to execute his decree against any of the mortgaged properties vide Amir Chand v. Bukshi Sheo Pershad Singh I.L.R(1907) . Calc. 13.2. Admittedly the respondent has no right to have the properties marshalled under Section 81 of the Transfer of Property Act; nor has he as against the mortgagee the right that Section 56 of the Act gives to a buyer against a seller when more properties than one are subject to a common charge. In Tara Prasanna Bose v. Nilmoni Kahn I.L.R. (1914) Calc. 418 which was a case falling under that section, the mortgagee had foreclosed and was therefore treated as representing the seller.3. Nor is it alleged that the present is any case of fraud on the part of the mortgagee. The respondent as second defendant was a party to the suit and he did not at the time of the tria...
The Secretary of State for India, Represented by the Collector of Sale ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.82
1. The Chief Justice--In this case certain land was taken many years ago under the Land Acquisition Act and ultimately the value was fixed and compensation allowed at Rs. 270. In the course of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, a mortgage by the owner of the land in favour of the present respondent came to light. The Revenue authorities who were enquiring into the matter came to the conclusion that the mortgage was a sham and not an effective transaction. When the award was made, the mortgagee who had not come in and claimed and was not taking any part in the proceedings, was disregarded and a part of the money was paid over to the mortgagor, the owner of the land. Before the whole of the money had been paid over, or rather while the Crown was in a position to get back some of the money that had been paid over, the mortgagee made his claim and, ultimately, when his claim was found to be a good one, he received the balance of the compensation money which had not been irrevo...
Narayanaswami Chetti Vs. Vellayya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.852
1. The District Munsif's action in dismissing the mortgagee-decree-holder's execution petition because he sought to bring only the 2nd item to sale cannot be supported. A decree-holder is entitled to execute his decree against any of the mortgaged properties [Vide Amir Chand v. Bukshe Sheo Pershad Singh 34 C. 13 : 4 Cri.L.J. 573.]2. Admittedly the respondent has no right to have the properties marshalled under section 81 of the Transfer of Property Act; nor has he as against the mortgagee the right that Section 56 of that Act gives to a buyer against a seller when more properties than one are subject to a common charge. In Tara Prasanna Bose v. Nilmoni Khan 25 Ind. Cas. 118 : 41 C. 418 which was a case falling under that section, the mortgagee had foreclosed and was, therefore, treated as representing the seller. Nor it is alleged that the present is any case of fraud on the part of the mortgagee. The respondent as 2nd defendant was a party to the suit and he did not at the time of tri...
Naraynaswami Chetti Vs. Vellaya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad366
1. The District Munsif's action in dismissing the mortgage decree-holder's execution petition because he sought to bring only the 2nd item to sale cannot be supported. A decree-holder is entitled to execute his decree against any of the mortgaged properties vide Amir Chand Bukshi Sheo Pershad Singh (1906) 34 Cal. 13.2. Admittedly the respondent has no right to have the properties marshalled under Section 81 of the Transfer of Property Act; nor has he as against the mortgagee the right that Section 82 of that Act gives to a buyer against a seller when more properties than one are subject to a common charge. In Tara Prasanna Bose v. Nilmoni Khan (1913) 41 Cal. 418 which was a case falling under that section, the mortgagee had foreclosed and was therefore treated as representing the seller.3. Nor is it alleged that the present is any case of fraud on the part of the mortgagee. The respondent as 2nd defendant was a party to the suit and he did not at the time of trial ask the Court to dire...
Natesa Pillai Vs. Kannammal Anni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ181
1. The appellant claims to be the legal representative of the plaintiff, who obtained a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit in O.S. No. 97 of 1912.2. The plaintiff admittedly had died before this appellant applied on November 29th, 1915 to be recognised as the heir of the plaintiff and to get a final decree passed.3. His application was dismissed on February 9th 1916 on account of his absence.4. As he did not get himself brought on the record at that time, the suit abated under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon 6 months expiring after the plaintiff's death;and as he did not apply subsequently to have the abatement set aside, the present application presented on October 10th, 1918 is out of time and incompetent.5. It is true that the District Munsif erroneously held that the suit had not abated because the plaintiff's death occurred between the passing of the Preliminary and the final decrees.6. But this Court has held in Lakshmi Achi v. Subbarama 28 MLJ 491 that th...
T.S. Venkatesa Aiyar and anr. Vs. K.S. Venkatarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.665
Phillips, J.1. The facts in this case are somewhat complicated. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 523 purchased certain property from one Rajammal, the property having previously been sold in Court sale in execution of a decree obtained by one Venkatesa Aiyar, the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 522. The respondent in both these petitions is the Court auction-purchaser. The Court auction was held on the 27th April 1920 and, on the 24th of June 1920 Rajammal, the judgment-debtor sold the property to the petitioner Sabesa Ayyar. On the 5th of July 1920, the day the Court re-opened, Rajammal put in an application under Order XXI, Rule 89 and put into Court the necessary money and asked that the sale should be set aside. On the 12th August 1920 she put in 15. A: No. 162 of 1920 asking that Sabesa Ayyar may be made a party to the first petition, and on the same day Sabesa Ayyar put in a petition on his own behalf asking that the sale should he set aside. The three petitions were disposed of by one orde...
Natesa Pillai Vs. Kannammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.64
1. The appellant claims to be the legal representative of the plaintiff, who obtained a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit in O.S. No. 97 of 1912.2. The plaintiff admittedly had died before this appellant applied on November 19th, 1915 to be recognised as the heir of the plaintiff and to get a final decree passed.3. His application was dismissed on February 9th, 1916 on account of his absence.4. As he did not get himself brought on the record at that time, the suit abated under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon six months expiring after the plaintiff's death; and as he did not apply subsequently to have the abatement set aside, the present application, presented on October 10th, 1918, is out of time and incompetent.5. It is true that the District Munsif erroneously held that the suit had not abated because the plaintiff's death occurred between the passing of the preliminary and the final decrees. But this Court has held in Lakshmi Achi v. Subbarama Aiyar 29 Ind...
R. Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs. M. Kunjithapatham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ849
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The facts in these cases are not disputed and the only question is whether on the facts the Subordinate judge was right in dismissing the applications.2. The election to the Taluk Board in question was held on the 9th of May 1922. The Subordinate Judge's Court was closed for the summer recess on the 14th of May and reopened on the 17th of July. The period of 14 days allowed for the presentation of the election petitions expired during the vacation and these petitions were presented on the 17th July the date when the Court re-opened. The case for the petitioners is that they had with them the sum of Rs. 200 each which had to be deposited and that these sums were produced before the Subordinate Judge.3. Rule 131 of the Civil Rules of Practice requires a person desirous of paying money into Court to bring into Court a lodgment schedule in the form prescribed by the rules and containing the various particulars mentioned therein. Thereupon an order for lodgment and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »