Chennai Court March 1924 Judgments
Muthusami Naidu Vs. Rayalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.395
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, the defendant and one Subba Konar were sureties for one Muthukrishna Naidu in respect of two promissory-notes for Rs. 500 each. Subsequently the defendant obtained a hypothecation bond from the principal debtor. Muthukrishna Naidu, for Rs. 3,500. Part of the consideration was an undertaking by the defendant to discharge the promissory-notes for which he and the plaintiff were jointly sureties. Subsequently a suit was filed on these promissory-notes, and decree was obtained and in execution, Rs. 615 was realised from the plaintiff. Meanwhile the defendant obtained a decree on his hypothecation bond and has purchased most of the properties belonging to the mortgagor. The plaintiff's suit is to recover the money which he had to pay on account of the suretyship. The District Munsif decreed the suit on the ground that the defendant having undertaken by the hypothecation bond B-I to discharge the promissory-notes was bound to contribute the money to...
Tag this Judgment!E. Sundram Chetty and anr. Vs. B. Damodaram Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.146
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note. The defendants are the son-in-law and wife of one Errappa Chetty and their plea was and is that the note was not executed for cash or other equivalent consideration but was executed only as a security to cover the advances to be made by the payees, B. Kuppu-swamy Chetty and sons to Errapa Chetty, and that they are liable only to such sums as may be found due on taking accounts between the payee firm and Errappa Chetty. 'The City Civil Judge without taking the evidence tendered by the defendants, decreed the suit. The exact legal ground on which he refused to take evidence is not clear. At one place he remarks that the suit note is a negotiable instrument. The plaintiffs being the trustees in bankruptcy of the payee firm are not holders in due course. Again he says: 'I do not see how I could direct the taking of accounts between him (i. e., Errappa Chetty) and the plaintiffs.' I do not see what the difficulty is. In pa...
Tag this Judgment!E. Sundaram Chetty and anr. Vs. B. Damodaran Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad850
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note. The defendants are the son-in-law and wife of one Errappa Chetty and their plea was and is that the note was not executed for cash or other equivalent consideration but was executed only as a security to cover the advances to be made by the payees B. Kuppuswamy Chetty and Sons to Errappa Chetty and that they are liable only to such sums as may be found due on taking accounts between the payee firm and Errappa Chatty. The City Civil Judge without taking the evidence tendered by the defendants, decreed the suit. The exact legal ground on which he refused to take evidence is not clear. At one place tie remarks that the suit note is a negotiable instrument. The plaintiffs being the trustees in bankruptcy of the payee firm are not holders in due course. Again he says 'I do not see how I could direct the taking of accounts between him (i.e., Errappa Chetty) and the plaintiffs.' I do not see what the difficulty is. In paragr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran Servai Vs. President, Union Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1924
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.529
ORDER1. The question for decision in this case is whether, when a Local Board moves a Magistrate under Section 221 of the Madras Local Boards Act XIV of 1920 to recover a penalty imposed for encroachment, the defaulting party can ventilate before the Magistrate his claim that there was no encroachment at all, and plead such a defence to the case.2. It is obvious that, if the petitioner's contention be sound that he is allowed to plead such a defence the Magistrate is constituted a sort of appellate authority over the Local Board in the matter of deciding whether or not there has been, in fact an encroachment; and a wholesale application of such a principle would mean that in all cases of demand by the Local Board for fees, tolls, costs, compensations, damages, penalties, charges, expenses, or other sums due to it, the Magistrate, a Judge appointed for the trial of criminal matters, is set up as the final Judge over the Local Board, except in so far as' either party may take the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: O. Thanikachallam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad868
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application by Rao Bahadur O. Thanikachallam Chettiar, one of the Commissioners of the Corporation of Madras and also a rate-payer, for an order directing that the President of of the Corporation of Madras do allow the Municipal Councillors to consider and vote upon the proposition referred to, in the Notice of Motion, which proposition was formerly moved and seconded at a meeting of the Corporation and which the President ruled out of order. The resolution which was moved and seconded runs as follows:This Council resolves that a reduction be made of property tax to the extent of 1/2 per cent. and if the financial position of the Corporation would not admit of such reduction, then the proposals for increase to the staff, increased grants and for revision, of the Works Dapartment sanctioned during the budget discussion be suspended from being given effect to during the coming year,2. The facts, which led to the present application, as appear from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppu Odayar Vs. Poomalai Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad896; (1924)47MLJ439
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The order passed by the District Magistrate.under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, on 23rd September, 1923, has expired.2. It is therefore unnecessary to adjudicate upon the merits of the order, and it would be superfluous to annul an order which has long ceased to be in force, vide Swaminatha Mudaliar v. Gopalakrishna Naidu 28 IndCas 160.3. Nevertheless it has been strongly urged that the District Magistrate should not have issued an order under Section 144 and should not have discharged the Sub-divisional Magistrate's order under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, without finding that there was a danger of a breach of the peace even if the Goundans continued to be bound over to keep the peace. In Muthukumaraswami Nadar v. Muhammad Rowther (1921) 42 MLJ 352 a learned Judge of this Court whose attention does not seem to have been drawn to Swaminatha Mudaliar v. Gopalakrishna Naidu 28 IndCas 160 thought it incumbent on him to interfere in revision with an expi...
Tag this Judgment!Prathipati Suryanarayana Vs. Prathipati Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad122; 90Ind.Cas.843
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This is a revision petition presented against the decision of the Additional District Munsif of Guntur in which he held that the plaintiff's suit bad not been properly valued. He held that ad valorem Court-fee on the value of the property claimed must be paid.2. Now the value of the suit is to be ascertained from the plaint and the plaint sets out that the suit is one for partition. It is brought by the plaintiff, the younger brother of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is the undivided son of the 1st, and the 4th and 5th defendants, the sons of the 2nd defendant. According to the plaint, in the year 1912 it was arranged that a division should take place and certain vessels and working utensils were divided out into three equal shares. The 1st defendant had been the manager of the joint family and he was apparently unwilling to divide the rest of the property, moveables and immoveables. The plaintiff has admittedly collected and applied to his own use certain rents...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Binny and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ242
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax which raises a very simple point in the sense that it can be put within a narrow compass on a very few undisputed facts; in another sense it raised a subtle question of law, for it has given rise to a great variety of judicial opinion in very high quarters.2. Now the facts are these. A company called the Deccan Sugar and Abkari Co., Ltd. was incorporated in 1897 with a share capital of ten lakhs in shares of Rs. 500 face value each. In May 1908, the capital was increased to 22 lakhs by adding 7,000 Preference Shares of the A class of Rs. 100 face value each and 5,000 Preference Shares of the B class also of Rs. 100 face value each. In 1908, in pursuance of a resolution passed in June, the ordinary share capital was reduced to Rs. 1,66,672, thus making the total capital of the company something over 13 lakhs. Messrs. Binny & Co., Ltd. held 200 ordinary shares of Rs. 125 each in this company. In 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. K. Sivarama Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad39; (1924)47MLJ373
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The accused was charged with misappropriation of paddy worth about Rs. 200. Summons was issued to him and he now moves the High Court and asks that the proceedings before the Magistrate should be quashed.2. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the High Court has no power to interfere with the proceedings of a Magistrate in a pending trial. Whether this contention is correct depends upon the interpretation of Sections 435, 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. Under Section 435 the High Court is empowered to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court and situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. The section thus does not deal merely with ' finding, sentence or order ' but with proceedings ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ganesa Mudaliar and anr. Vs. V. Gnanasikhamani Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.505; (1924)47MLJ385
1. The question in this case is whether Exhibits I and C, both dated 14th July, 1902, Ex. I being ostensibly a deed of absolute sale and Exhibit C an agreement by the vendee to reconvey the property at any time within 8 years on payment of the consideration recited in Exhibit I, constitute an out and out sale and an agreement for reconveyance or a mortgage by conditional sale. Both the lower Courts have held to the former view and it is urged that they are wrong.2. That such a question is not a pure question of fact is clear from the numerous cases in which it has been allowed to be fully argued in second appeals before this Court.3. The first defendant, vendee, under Exhibit I, was already holding an equitable mortgage on the property. The mortgagor, one C. Velayudha Mudali, was the owner of the property. He sold it to his mother-in-law under Exhibit B, evidently with a view to avoiding creditors. The first defendant was pressing for payment and the mother-in-law, 8 or 9 months after ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »