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.
Rangiah Chettiar Vs. Annaswamy Alwar Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.408
Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. The petition was presented when the old Insolvency Act, III of 1907, was in force. Nothing was done except transfering the application to the Official Receiver. After the new Insolvency Act, V of 1920, came into force the adjudication order was passed. It is contended that the provisions of the old Act applied and that all cases filed when Act III of 1907 was in force should be dealt with on the footing that that Act continues to be in force. I do not think that contention is sound. No doubt any order passed under the Act or rights obtained there under will be unaffected by the new Act. I can find no authority for holding that, in spite of passing of Act V of 1920, all proceedings, on petitions filed under Act III of 1907, should continue to be dealt with under the provisions of the old Act....
Chinnappa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.708
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an application against an order passed by the Second Class Magistrate of Villupuram rejecting an application by the 2nd accused that he should not be tried for the offence of rioting under Section 147, because he had been already acquitted on a former occasion in C.C No. 237 of 1922 by the Sub-Magistrate of Tindivanam on the same facts although on that occasion he was charged only with the offence of miss. chief. The two prosecutions seem to be based to a great extent upon the same facts. They arise from the alleged facts that the 2nd accused went with a number of others to a Palmyra tope and some of the persons in that assembly climbed up the trees and cut down the spathes of the trees and also threw down the pots attached to them in which toddy was being collected. The Magistrate has held that Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, is not applicable to this case because he holds that the trial of the previous case referred to an offence under a section whic...
In Re: Chinnappa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad478
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an application against an order passed by the 2nd Glass Magistrate of Villipuram rejecting an application by the 2nd accused that he should not be tried for the offence of rioting, under Section 147, because he had been already-acquitted on a former occasion in C.C. No. 237 of 1922, by the Sub-Magistrate of Tindivanam on the same facts, although on that occasion he was charged only with the offence of mischief. The two prosecutions seem to be based, to a great extent, upon the same facts. They arise from the alleged facts that the 2nd accused went with a number of others to a palmyra tope and some of the persons in that assembly climbed up the trees and out down the spathes of trees and also threw down the pots attached to them, in which toddy was being collected. The Magistrate has held that Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable to this case, because he holds that the trial of the previous case referred to an offence under a Section which h...
Thimmarazu Venkata Kutumba Rao Vs. Thimmarazu Venkatappa (of Unsound) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad483; (1924)46MLJ119
1. The application under Order 21, Rule 89, C.P. Code was made by the authorised vakil of a person entitled to apply. We are not prepared to hold that the words ' on his depositing in Court ' make the application incompetent if the person who actually pays the money into the Treasury is not a pleader or recognised agent within the meaning of Order 3, Rule 1. The decision in Sarvi Begum v. Haider Shah (1917) 9 ALJ 12 is distinguishable by the fact that there the application under the section of the Code was not a competent one. The lower Court has found that the payer in this case was the vakil's clerk.2. Rule 131 of the Civil Rules of Practice only requires that the lodgment schedule should be signed by the payer. It is not questioned that the money paid into Court was that of the respondents. The applicant is the guardian of the persons entitled to apply, the money is their money; the mere fact that the vakil sent the money by the hand of his clerk instead of taking it to the treasury...
Kasibhotla Venkata Seshamma Vs. Kalaga Gunneswara Rao, Minor by Guardi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.860; (1924)46MLJ129
1. These appeals arise out of the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the application to be brought on record as the deceased plaintiff's legal representative. The appellant and others filed separate petitions to be brought on record and the Subordinate Judge directed that the person claiming to be the adopted son of the deceased be brought on record. The appellant's application was dismissed as out of time. It is admitted that the suits have been withdrawn by the adopted son with- leave to file fresh suits. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeals lie from the orders.2. We think that the contention should be upheld. Order 43 Rule 1 (k) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for appeals against an order under Rule 9 of Order 22 refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit. In the present case there has been no abatement. The application of one of several persons who applied to be brought on record as the legal representative was granted and it is difficult ...
Loorthi Odayar Vs. Gopalasami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ125
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Question to be decided in this appeal is: Is the mortgage (Ex. 1) executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant liable to set aside at the instance of the plaintiff under Section 53. of the Transfer of Property Act?2. [The learned Judge then discusses the evidence and comes to the conclusion that the 1st defendant executed the mortgage with the intention of defrauding the plaintiff and that the 2nd defendant was aware of that intention.]3. The consideration for the mortgage deed is said to consist of(1) Rs. 7,037-12-10 which is the aggregate amount of the debts due by the 1st defendant to third parties and which the 2nd defendant claims to have discharged. [The evidence as regards this item is discussed and the conclusion reached that the consideration to this extent did really pass for the mortgage document.](2) Rs. 1,873-8-0 said to be the amount which was due by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant on a promissory note of a prior date, nam...
Loorthia Odayar Vs. Gopalasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad450; 80Ind.Cas.147
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is: Is the mortgage (Ex. 1) executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant liable to be set aside at the instance of the plaintiff under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act?2. The 1st defendant and her son had executed in favour of the plaintiff a promissory note and the plaintiff tiled a suit for the recovery of the amount due under it. The first defendant filed a written statement in that suit denying the execution of the promissory note. This statement was filed on the 7th of February 1916. On the date of the hearing, the 1st defendant did not appear and an ex parte decree was obtained by the plaintiff in about June 1916.2. In the mean-time, that is, a few days after the filing of the written statement but before the decree aforesaid was passed, the 1st defendant mortgaged her properties to the 2nd defendant by Ex. 1, dated 26th February 1916. The 2nd defendant is the brother's son of the 1st defen...
In Re: Ellan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad351; (1923)45MLJ842
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of North Arcot recommending that the order passed by the second class Magistrate of Gudiyatham in C.C. No. 230 of 1923 under the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act should be set aside. The District Magistrate considers that the agreement which the second class Magistrate has enforced in this case is 'but a cloak for slavery.' The agreement was for a sum of Rs. 160 due by the accused, father and son, to the complainant and they agreed to work in his cocoanut tope for a period of one year and subsequently to repay any money that may be found still due by them to him at the end of the year. They were to be paid Rs. 6 per month out of which Rs. 2 a month were to be taken towards this debt, Rs. 4 being paid to them in cash. This working in the tope was to continue for only a year, and there is no obligation under the agreement to work in the tope thereafter; and the bond then converted itself into a simple money debt bond. I a...
The Pubulic Prosecutor Vs. Mari Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.653
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government against the acquittal of the accused of an offence under Section 245. Criminal Procedure Code by the Sub-Magistrate of Perundurai. The acquittal is based on the ground that, no sanction had been produced under Section. 195, Criminal Procedure Code, from the District Munsif, the complainant being the Village Munsif whose superior is the District Munsif. The complaint that he brought forward against the accused was for hit offence under Section 183, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate overlooked the tact that, under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, sanction is not necessary when, as here, the public servant against whom the offence has been committed is himself the complainant. In such cases as that, no sanction is necessary at all under Section 195 Sub-section (1), Clause (a).2. An argument has been put forward by the learned Vakil for the accused with reference to Section (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, that section says, inter ...
Ellan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.641
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of North Arcot recommending that the order passed by the Second Class Magistrate of Gudiyatham in C.C. No. 230 of 1923 under Workman's Breach of Contract Act should be set aside. The District Magistrate considers that the agreement which the Second Class Magistrate has enforced in this case is 'but a cloak of slavery.' The agreement was for a sum of Rs. 160 due by the accused, father and son, to the complainant and they agreed to work in his cocoa nut tope for a period of one year and subsequently to re-pay any money that may be found still due by them to him at the end of the year. They were to be paid Rs. 6 per month, out of which Rs. 2 a month were to be taken towards this debt, Rs. 4 being paid to them in cash. This working in the tope was to continue for only a year, and there is no obligation under the agreement to work in the to pe thereafter; and the bond then converted itself into a simple money-debt bond. I am...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »