Chennai Court August 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.
(Kancherla) Pushkaramba and anr. Vs. Kancherla Nagaratnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad283
1. In this case a notice in the form (No. 6-A.) appended to Order 41-A., Schedule 1, Civil P.C., made by the High Court was received by the 1st respondent (1st petitioner) on 21st December 1923, and the 2nd respondent (2nd. petitioner) on 5th January 1924. A memorandum of cross-objections was filed on 11th February 1924. The respondent's vakil claims that he is in time as he has not yet received a notice fixing the date of hearing and it is only within 30 days from the receipt of such a notice that he was to file his memorandum of cross-objections. In framing Order 41-A., and Form 6-A. fixing time for appearance, Civil P.C. Order 41, Rule 22, seems to have been overlooked. Order 41, Rule 12, requires that a day for hearing should be fixed and even if we can construe Order 41-A as making this unnecessary, there must be some rule guiding the litigants as to how Order 41, Rule 22, should be complied with. There is no rule saying that the day fixed for appearance shall be regarded as the d...
Ramasami Nayakar and anr. Vs. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad222
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The question raised in this Second Appeal relates to the principle on which damages should be awarded for trespass on land and the proper measure of such damages. The plaintiffs-appellants, are the owners of about 21/2 acres of land, on which and several other adjoining lands a cattle-fair used to be held annually the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs would appear to have been content to let this land, for the purpose of the fair, receiving the sum of Rs. 50, as rent every year. But from about the year 1911, the plaintiffs refused to let the land on the same rant. For the years 1911 and 1912 The plaintiffs obtained, in a decree ex parte damages against the defendants, at Rs. 300 per annum, for trespass on the suit land, consisting in their using the land for the cattle-fair, without any agreement with the plaintiffs and without their permission.2. In the first two suits, the plaintiffs have claimed from the defendant damages at the rata of Rs. 300 per a...
G. Krishnaswami Ayyar and Chakrapani Achari Vs. T.V. Swaminatha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad331
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The question that comes up for our decision in appeal is whether vakils have a right of audience in the Insolvency Court at the Presidency Town of Madras. We have heard fall arguments from Mr. G. Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar on behalf of the vakils and from Mr. Grant and Mr. Sidney Smith for the advocates. The whole question has been dealt with in. their arguments exhaustively and in every aspect.2. Vakils appear and plead on the Original Side of the High Court at Madras, notwithstanding that the Charter of 1800 authorized only three classes of practitioners, namely, (1) bona fide practitioners of the law in the old Court of the recorder, which was thereby abolished; (2) barristers-at-law in England or Ireland; and (3) attorneys or solicitors admitted in one of the Courts at Westminster or otherwise capable of acting as well in the character of advocates as of attorneys, and that the Charter went on todeclare that no other ...
P. Babu Sah Vs. V.M. Purushothama Sah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.201
1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Kumara-swami Sastri permitting the plaintiff in C.S. No. 275 of 1924 to sue in forma pauperis. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. In Appasami Pillai v. Somasundra Mudaliar 26 M. 437 it was held that there was no appeal under the Letters Patent against an order of 4 Single Judge refusing to give leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Although the C.P.C. does not provide for appeal against orders made under Order XXXIII, Rule 7 an appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a Single Judge sitting on the Original Side with certain exceptions which do not include the present kind of order. It is argued that the order of the learned Judge was merely an order upon an interlocutory application which was a step towards obtaining a final adjudication and that it does not finally dispose of the plaintiff's right to bring the suit, as it was always open to him to pay the Court-fees and proceed....
Ramasami Naicker and anr. Vs. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.268
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The question raised in this second appeal relates to the principle on which damages should be awarded in respect of trespass on land and the proper measure of such damages. The plaintiffs-appellants are the owners of about 21/2 acres of land on which and several other, adjoining lands a cattle fair used to be held annually. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs would appear to have been content to let this land for the purpose of the fair receiving the sum of Rs. 50 as rent every year. But from about the year 1911 the plaintiffs refused to let the land on the same rent. For the years 1911 and 1912 the plaintiffs obtained in a decree ex parts damages against the defendants at Rs. 300 per annum for trespass on the suit land consisting in their using the land for the cattle fair without any agreement with the plaintiffs and without their permission. In the first two suits the plaintiffs have. claimed from the defendants damages at the rate of Rs. 300 per an...
In Re: G. Krishnaswami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.1025
Charles Gorden Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The question that comes up for our decision in appeal is whether Vakils have aright of audience in the Insolvency Court at the Presidency Town of Madras. We have heard full arguments from Mr. G. Krishnaswami Ayyar, and Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar, on behalf of the Vakils and from Mr. Grant and Mr. Sidney Smith, for the Advocates. The whole question has been dealt with in their arguments exhaustively and in every aspect.2. Vakils appear and plead on the Original Side of the High Court at Madras, notwithstanding that the Charter of 1800 authorized only three classes of practitioners, namely, (1) bona fide practitioners of the law in the old Court of the Recorder, which was thereby abolished; (2) Barristers-at-Law in England or Ireland; and (3) Attorneys or Solicitors admitted in one of the Courts at Westminster or otherwise capable of acting as well in the character of Advocates as of Attorneys, and the Charter went on to 'declare that no other, p...
V. Daleppadu and ors. Vs. T. Suranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad278
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff's suit was for putting up certain bunds shown in the plaint plan and also for damages against the defendants on account of their negligence in not helping the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In the Appellate Court, the learned Subordinate Judge, while dismissing the appeal, added to the judgment a note; 'But plaintiff's vakil asks me to pass a decree ordering an amin to be sent, for having straight bunds put up as per terms of the agreement Exhibit A, between the Survey stones demarcating the parties' land from each other. Mr. P.L. Narasimham for the defendants has no objection provided the appeal is dismissed in other respects, with costs.' The decree which has been passed, as it appears from the judgment by consent of the vakil for the defendants, is objected to, by the defendants-appellants.2. They have filed an affidavit in this Court to the effect, that they never gave any permission to their pleader, to consent to suc...
Vepari Dolappadu and ors. Vs. Thottadi Suranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.408
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff's suit was for putting up certain bunds shown in the plaint plan and also for damages against the defendants on account of their negligence in not helping the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In the Appellate Court, the learned Subordinate Judge while dismissing the appeal added to the judgment a note. 'But plaintiff's 'Vakil asks me to pass a decree ordering an amin to be sent for having straight bunds put up as per terms of the agreement Ex. A between the survey stones demarkating the parties' land from each other. Mr. P.L. Narasimham for the defendants has no objection, provided the appeal is dismissed in other respects with costs.' The decree which has been passed, as it appears from the judgment, by consent of the Vakil for the defendants, is objected to by the defendants-appellants. They have filed an affidavit in this Court to the effect that they never gave any permission to their Pleader to consent to such a decree....
Kumaragurudasa Swamigal Vs. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.144; (1924)47MLJ664
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate. A book was written by the 1st accused as a reply to a book written by the complainant. Both the books deal with highly controversial religious matters. In expressing his opinion, the 1st accused has no doubt used very violent expressions, but taking them along with the context in which they appear, I agree with the Magistrate that they cannot be considered defamatory. I do not think that the personal character or respectability of the complainant is in any way assailed by the use of the expressions complained of. I dismiss this application....
G. Mudappa and ors. Vs. S. Parameswara Bhat and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad242
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The appellants before us were adjudicated insolvents, by an order of the District Judge, dated the 14th March, 1924. The petition in insolvency was filed on the 13th November, 1922, by a creditor to whom about Rs. 20,000 was due by the insolvents. Various adjournments were obtained on the ground that the debtors were settling with their creditors. One of these orders of adjournments was made on the 4th February, 1924. It is specifically mentioned in it that ' no further adjournment will be granted, beyond the 25th February, to which date this (that is the petition), is finally adjourned.' It is clear that the procedure prescribed by Section 24 of the Provincial Insolvency Act was followed and the learned Judge gives a finding that the insolvents committed an act of insolvency. As regards this there can be no doubt, because Exhibit A, which is a notice issued by the debtors, previous to the filing of the petition contains a statement, that the debtors were unable ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »