Chennai Court January 1925 Judgments
B. Parthasarathy Chetty and Co. Vs. T.M. Gajapathy Naidu and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR38Mad787
Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. If I had not the misfortune to differ from my learned predecessor who tried this case, I should myself have thought this matter to be a reasonably clear one. The plaintiffs are persons who were buying goods from foreign merchants in Europe on the demands of persons in the position of the defendants, and in this case the defendants commissioned the plaintiffs to get them some fireworks from Europe on certain conditions. The contract is a confused document, but the clauses that we are primarily concerned with apparently are reasonably clear. The contract provided for the drawing of bills against invoices and I will take it for purposes of argument that this was in effect a C.I.F,, contract. The invoices come to hand with the documents and drafts attached. The terms of payment are these:We authorize you to draw upon us for the total amount of invoice at the sight mentioned below at current rate of exchange and such bill or bills we hereby bind ourselves to ac...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Anwarul Huq Sahib and anr. Vs. M. A. Srinivasa Iyengar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad353; 95Ind.Cas.630; 95Ind.Cas.630
1. Into the very intricate details of this litigation it is unnecessary to enter. The facts are clearly set forth in the petition filed in the lower Court by the present appellants dated 11th April 1921. The short question to be decided in this appeal is whether the alleged loss incurred by the appellants by reason of the private sale of the property effected by them is a loss that can be made good, by an order under Section 144, C. P. C. The appellants were not under any legal obligation to pay the amount into Court. As a matter of abundant caution, they sold the property by private contract, raised money and paid it into Court under Order XXI, Rule 89. They deposited the amount on the footing that they were likely to lose the appeal which was then pending. If they were successful they would be entitled to get the property back without any payment into Court. The damages, therefore, that are claimed are very remote and cannot be said to follow from the act of the respondent.2. In rega...
Tag this Judgment!Pachaiyappa Chetti Vs. Sivakami Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad109; (1925)49MLJ468
Phillips, J. 1. The plaintiff in this case is the daughter of one Ponnambala Chetti, who, with his brother, Periyambala Chetti, formed an undivided family. They carried on money-lending dealings and entrusted those dealings to their brother-in-law, Sadayappa Chetti, the father of the present defendant. Sadayappa Chetti continued those dealings for some time and maintained accounts for the moneys in his hands. In 1906 the brothers, Ponnambala Chetty and Periyambala Chetty, effected a partition and the latter removed his share of the property from the hands of Sadayappa Chetty who, however, continued to deal with the property of Ponnambala Chetty until the latter's death in February, 1912, and even after that date remained in possession of all his property. The plaintiff now alleges that Sadayappa Chetty held all these properties in trust for her and has brought this suit against his son, the defendant, for an account. These facts are not disputed, but it is contended that the plaintiff'...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.S.M.A.R.L. Arunachalam Chettiar by Power of Attorney Agent, G.S. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ562
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Is the transaction impeached by the Official Receiver fraudulent under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act The learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that it is and, in my opinion, he is right. On the evidence, the debtors were heavily involved in October, 1921. They were threatened with suits and applications for attachment and arrest before judgment. There seemed to be very little hope of averting bankruptcy. In these circumstances they executed a mortgage in favour of the appellant, a Nattukottai Chetty. The debt due to him was about Rs. 10,900 and odd and this mortgage was executed to secure Rs. 10,000 out of that sum. There is little reason to doubt that Raghavachari who was then acting for the Chetty was aware of the condition of the debtors' affairs and of the fact that numerous other creditors were pressing them for repayment of amounts due. The other facts material for this appeal are the following : The debtors were said to be possess...
Tag this Judgment!Aumanchi Auryaprabhakara Rau and anr. Vs. Gummudu Sanyasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1925
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ598
Phillips, J.1. S.A. No. 1469 of 1922 : The appellants in this appeal obtained an agreement for the sale of certain Karnam service inams from the 1st defendant. This inam undoubtedly formed the emoluments of the Karnam's office and its transfer is forbidden by Section 5 of Madras Act III of 1895. Prima facie, it would appear that this contract was a contract to perform something which is forbidden by law and would consequently be void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. It is, however, contended for the appellants that this agreement was not to transfer the inam when it constituted the emoluments of the Karnam's office, but to transfer this land after it had been enfranchised by the Inam Deputy Collector, and that, consequently, Madras Act III of 1895 does not apply. It is quite true that if the land had been enfranchised at the time of the contract, it would have been transferred without offending against Madras Act III of 1895, but when the parties entered into the contract, ...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.S.M.S.R.L. Arunacheallam Chettiar Vs. Official Receiver of Tanjore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1089
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Is the transaction impeached by the Official Receiver fraudulent, under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act? The learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that it is and, in my opinion, he is right. On the evidence, the debtors were heavily involved in October 1921. They were threatened with suits and applications for attachment and arrest before judgment. There seemed to be little hope of averting bankruptcy. In these circumstances, they executed a mortgage in favour of the appellant, a Nattukottai Chetty. The debt due to him was about Rs. 10,900 and odd and this mortgage was executed to secure Rs. 10,000 out of that sum. There is little reason to doubt that Raghavachari, who was then acting for the Chetty, was aware of the condition of the debtors' affairs and of the fact that numerous other creditors were pressing them, for repayment of amounts due. The other facts material for this appeal are the following : The debtors were said to be possess...
Tag this Judgment!Pachiappa Chetty Vs. Sivakami Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.671
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the daughter of one Ponnambala Chetty who with his brother, Periambala Chetty formed an undivided family. They carried on money-lending dealings and entrusted those dealings; to their brother-in-law Sadayappa Chetty, the lather of the present defendant, Sadayappa Chetty continued those dealings for sometime and maintained accounts for the monies in his hands. In 1906 the brothers Ponnambala Chetty and Periambala Chetty effected a partition and the latter removed his share of the property from the hands of Sadayappa Chetty who, however, continued to deal with the property of Ponnambala Chetty until the latter's death in February 1912, and even after that date remained in possession of all his property. The plaintiff now alleges that Sadayappa Chetty held all these properties in trust for her and has brought this suit against his son, the defendant for an account. These facts are not disputed; but it is contended that the plaintiff's suit for ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramiah and Co. Vs. T.R. Sadasiva Mudaliar and Bros.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1255; (1925)49MLJ228
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the appellants bought some bales of grey shirtings from one Krishnaji Kesari Mull, a Bombay merchant. They sold them to the plaintiffs and then they went through a long chain of changing hands and, in the end, some 7 or 8 months after the bales had been sold, it turned! out that some of them were short by 10 pieces ; that is to say, whereas they purported to contain 60 pieces they in fact contained only 50.2. The learned Chief Justice, my predecessor, who tried this case found on the evidence before him that, although only 3 bales had been opened, the reasonable conclusion of fact was that the shortage extended to the other 5 bales which were exactly of the same size, appearance and description and, with that finding which the learned Judge was entitled to come to, we do not desire to interfere. There was evidence to support it and one knows that to rip up a bale for the purpose of counting the contents has a most damaging effect upon i...
Tag this Judgment!Mula Naramma Vs. Mula Rengamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad359
ORDERsrinivasa Iyengar, J.1. After taking time to consider my order, and giving the matter my very careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this petition for transfer should be dismissed.2. The transfer that has been applied for is of Original Petition No. 30 of 1922 on the file of the District Court of Anantapur to another District Court. That original petition was filed under the Guardians and Wards Act more than two years ago and has been pending all this time and is now part-heard. The most curious feature about the application for transfer is that the affidavit in support, thereof has been filed not by the petitioner, who is also the petitioner in the lower Court, or any agent or relation of hers, but by her vakil who has been appearing for her in that original petition. In the view that I have taken of this case it is unnecessary for me to deal in detail with the various allegations made and denied on one side or the other. It is sufficient to state that the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Sinnana Goundan Vs. Veerappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad681
Phillips, J.1. This appeal relates to a question of easement. The plaintiff's father and the 1st defendant effected a partition about 25 years ago and now the plaintiff claims to have a right to drain off the water from his house and sits through a hole in the wall, marked A.R.W. on the plan and across the defendant's yard to the street in the north.2. It is conceded that this is not an easement of necessity but the learned Advocate-General contends that it is an easement within the meaning of Section 13(f) of the Easements Act namely, that it is an apparent and continuous easement and that it was enjoyed before the partition. It is, however, admitted that since the partition took place this wall A.E.W. has been built by the parties jointly. It is further clear that prior to the partition there was no particular easement right to take water through that one point B. It is possible and indeed probable from the lie of the land that the water from the plaintiff's site did drain off toward...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »