Chennai Court March 1924 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.
In Re: Mirza Ahamad Namazi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad703
Devadoss, J.1. This is a Judge's Summons, to show cause why the alleged surrender of the shares, hold by respondents 1 and 2, and the forfeiture of the shares, held by respondents 3 to 6, should not be declared to be invalid, and why all the respondents herein should not be directed, to pay to the liquidators, the respective call amounts, and allotment monies, due in respect of the shares, held by them and for incidental reliefs. There are 9 respondents to this application. Respondents 2, 7 and 9 do not appear and they are declared ex parte. The 3rd respondent is dead and the application is withdrawn as against him. The eighth respondent admits his liability and his letter is filed as Ex. K.2. The contention of the first respondent is that he surrendered the shares to the company and the surrender was accepted by the directors. On behalf-of tht liquidator, who has taken out this Judge's summons, it is alleged that there were 4 directors in Madras, at the time when the resolution accept...
E.M. Gopalakrishna Konar Vs. A. Vilanga Konar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad132
ORDERJackson, J.1. This is a petition for issue of an injunction restraining second respondent from taking his seat as Councillor in the Municipal Council of Madura pending disposal of C.R.P. No. 182 of 1924.2. Petitioner and respondents were rival candidates in a Municipal election; petitioner was declared elected, and has since been, unseated after the inquiry in O.P. No. 51 of 1923 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, and C.R.P. No. 182 of 1924 is preferred against that decision.3. I am doubtful whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction in such a matter. No such power lies with the Judge who holds an inquiry under the election rules, and it is not clear that the High Court acting in revision has any extended power. If a suit is transferred to the High Court, its powers are confined to powers which but for the transfer might have been exercised by the original Court: Annie Besant v. Narayaniah (1914) 38 Mad. 807. However the Calcutta High Court has held t...
Mohideen Kariya Pulavar Vs. Periyanayakam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad233a; 84Ind.Cas.118
Krishnan, J.1. Two points are taken before me in this second appeal. The first point is the one dealt with, by the Subordinate Judge in paragraph 3 of his judgment. It is contended that because the security bond, on which the suit has been brought;, was given to the Secretary of the company before it was registered in 1907, and because the company was subsequently registered under the Companies Act, the assignment of the bond made by the Secretary subsequent to the registration is not a valid assignment. This contention is untenable. The company at the time the then secretary took the bond was validly formed company and no registration was necessary to constitute it into a proper company, the number of shareholders being only 9. The decision in Neelamega Sastri v. Appiah Sastri (1906) 29 Mad. 471 referred to by the Subordinate Judge is clearly authority for it. The fact that the company was subsequently registered cannot invalidate the previous dealings of the company. The bond was the...
E.M. Gopalakrisna Konar Vs. A. Vilanga Konar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.819
ORDERJackson, J.1. This is a petition for issue of an injunction restraining second respondent from taking his seat as Councillor in the Municipal Council of Madura pending disposal of C.R.P. No. 182 of 1924.2. Petitioner and respondent were rival candidates in a Municipal election; petitioner was declared, and has since been unseated after the inquiry in O.P. No. 51 of 1923 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, and C.R.P. No. 182 of 1924 is preferred, against that decision.3. I am doubtful whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction in such a matter. Mo such power lies with the Judge who holds an inquiry under the election rules, and it is not clear that the High Court acting in revision has any extended power. If a suit is transferred to the High Court, its powers are confined to powers which but for the transfer might have been exercised by the original Court: Annie Besant v. Narayaniah 24 Ind. Cas. 290 : 38 M.p 807 : 27 M.L.J. 30 : 18 C.W.N. 1089 : 1 L.W. ...
K.S. Krishna Aiyar Vs. Nynadikkam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad801
Krishnan, J.1. This suit was brought on an arrangement, which, was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the defendant was to take an assignment of a decree, which the plaintiff obtained against one Ananthanarayana Aiyar, on payment of Rs. 400 in the circumstances that have happened here. Two points were taken before me in Second Appeal. The first point is that as Ananthanarayana Aiyar has become an insolvent, the defendant is not bound to accept the assignment of the decree and is not bound to pay the money due under the contract, Reliance is placed on a case reported in Jatindra Nath Basu v. Peyer Deye Debe [1916] 43 Cal. 999, a decision of the Privy Council. There, the decree that was agreed to be assigned subsequently became barred by limitation, as the assignor did not' take steps in time to keep the decree alive; their Lordships held that as the plaintiff had agreed to take the assignment of a subsisting decree, there was a duty on the part of the decree-holder to ke...
(Muthyala) Venkobanna Vs. Firm of Myachand-venichand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad286
Jackson, J.1. Appellant stood surety for a judgment-debtor under Section 55(4). Civil P.C. The judgment-debtor filed his insolvency petition one day after the prescribed month. The District Judge held that the Court has no power to excuse the delay and ordered execution to preceed against the surety. Hence this appeal.2. I agree with the lower appellate Court that where the Code prescribes one month the Court cannot grant a longer period. Even if it has such discretion of. Abdul Hussein Essufalli v. D.J. Mistri & Co. A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 340 I should not exercise it in this case, for there was no need for the judgment-debtor to postpone filing his petition till the last moment.3. It is then urged that under Section 55(4) Civil P.C. if the judgment-debtor fails to present his petition, he must be called upon to appear and only upon his failure to comply with that summons, is the surety liable. I find no warrant for this interpretation. The surety undertakes that the judgment-debtor will app...
R. Appayya Vs. A. Venkatramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad150
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the competition is between the plaintiff, who was the puisne mortgagee, who brought a suit on his own mortgage without making the prior mortgagee a party and purchased the property in Court auction and the prior mortgagee who brought a suit without making the puisne mortgagee party and purchased the property himself. Neither-mortgagee made the other mortgagee a party to his suit. The puisne mortgagee now claims possession of the property under his purchase and in the alternative,, relying on his mortgage, asks to be permitted to redeem the prior mortgagee or to bring the property to sale subject to that mortgage.2. When two mortgagees bring suits like this each suing without making the other mortgagee a party, it is clear on the authorities that the rights of either mortgagee' are not affected by the suit brought, without making him a party. The result is the puisne mortgagee would have been entitled to redeem the prior mortgagee, in-this case, if no diffic...
Sangali Solagan Vs. Nagamuthu Malavadi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.612
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the 3rd defendant is the appellant before me. The plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of a contract entered into with him by the 1st defendant Ex. A in the case, for a sale of the suit property to him. The terms of the contract are embodied in the document. The property which was arranged to be sold belonged to the 1st defendant and his brother, the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant is a subsequent purchaser from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 of the property. Specific performance has been decreed by both the lower Courts bath effect a sale of the property. In these circumstances it seems to me that it must be held that the agreement Ex. A entered into by the elder brother with the plaintiff on behalf of both brothers for the sale of the property is binding upon they younger brother and that it was not open to the younger brother who came two days thereafter, to vary or alter its terms unless the plaintiff agreed to it. It is found that the plaintiff d...
Rachamadugu Venkatapathi (Minor) by Next Friend Lakshmamma Vs. K. Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ528
Phillips, J.1. I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother and need only say that the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1891 in Comfort v. Betts (1891) 1 QB 737 governs this case also. I may also refer to Palaniappa v. Lakshmanan I.L.R. (1893) M 429. and Navajee v. The Administrator-General of Madras I.L.R. (1913) M 500. as supporting this conclusion. The appellant is entitled to the money in Court as the assignment created in the assignor's favour a lien in the nature of a trust or a charge on the money recovered thereunder. The appeal is therefore allowed with costs throughout.Odgers, J. 2. On 23rd September, 1913, the Swami of Ahobilam Mutt assigned to Rangiah and Sanjeeviah the amount due for rent and damages from one Ramappa who had leased certain lands belonging to the Mutt. The assignees were to collect the arrears of rent due from Ramappa, recover damages from him in respect of cutting trees, pay all the costs themselves in the first instance and pay over hall the ne...
Arunachala Goundan Vs. Katha Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ514
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. There were two suits before the District Munsif, the one he dismissed for default on account of the non-appearance of the plaintiff, and in the other he passed an ex parte decree on account of the defendant not having appeared. The plaintiff in the first suit and the defendant in the second suit happen to be the same person. Applications were made to the District Munsif to set aside the order of dismissal for default in the first suit and to set aside the ex parle decree in the second suit. The District Munsif refused to allow these applications, but on appeal the District Judge made orders favourable to the applicant. The propriety of these orders is challenged in the revision petitions before me.2. A Vakil appeared for the party in default and stated he had no instructions. It is argued that notwithstanding this the pleader must be held to have appeared on his client's behalf and, therefore, the provisions of Order 9 do not apply. I am utterly unable to follow ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »