Chennai Court January 1925 Judgments
B.R. Ramanujachariar Vs. T.V. Kailasam Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.969
ORDERSrinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner in this case was charged before the Stationary Second Class Magistrate of Mannargudi with an offence under Section 159 read with Section 207 of the Local Boards Act, Madras Act XIV of 1920 He raised a plea in bar of the prosecution on the ground that for the same offence, he was previously charged in C. C. No. 215 of 1923, on the file of the same Court, that the complaint was then withdrawn by the local authority and that the order of acquittal then passed by the Magistrate under Section 248 of the Cr. P.C. was a bar to the present prosecution. The learned Counsel for the District Board of Tanjore has con- tended before me that according to the scheme of the Act the offence consisted not in the encroachment alleged to have been made by the accused but in his failing' to comply with any direction lawfully given to him within the terms of Clause (c) of Section 207 of that Act and that, therefore, the local authority was entitled again and again...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Nayadu Vs. K.N.S. Subbaraya thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.648
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal arises in connection with the execution of a razinama decree passed in O.S. No. 80 of 1918 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. The appellant is the first defendant in the suit. The first respondent is the assignee decree-holder and the other respondents are the remaining three defendants in O.S. No. 80 of 1918 who are the sons of the first defendant and the plaintiff the decree-holder. The compromise decree was assigned by the next friend of the plaintiff-decree-holder to the present first respondent and he presented B.P. No. 4 of 1923 praying for the recognition of the assignment and for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 58,235-12-0 by the sale of the properties as per terms of the decree. The defendants in the suit opposed the application. The Subordinate Judge passed an order recognising the assignment subject to certain conditions and also allowing the execution of the decree. It is this order that is now appealed against...
Tag this Judgment!Meruva Parasuramudu Vs. Mandavilli Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1178; 87Ind.Cas.960; (1925)49MLJ353
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I think this is a case in which leave to appeal should be granted underthe provisions of Order 44 of the Procedure Code. Mr. P. Somasundaram appeared without any notice on behalf of the respondent in the appeal and wished to be heard on the question whether, having regard to the terms of the proviso to R. I of that order there is such a case made out for the appellant as would justify me in saying that the judgment and decree of the Lower Court are erroneous or unjust. I am not satisfied that he has got any locus spandi to appear at this stage and require to be heard, but I have nevertheless heard him, and even after hearing him I am not at all satisfied that the requirements of the proviso are not satisfied in this particular case. I cannot possibly read the terms of the proviso as indicating that I must go through the whole case and admit the appeal only if I am satisfied that I would reverse it there and then if no appearance was entered for the respond...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.S.A.R.S. Arunachalam Chettiar, Legal Representative of P.L.S.A.R.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ530
Krishnan, J.1. This appeal arises froma suit brought by the plaintiffs in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Madura on a Hundi or Bill of Exchange executed by one Pasimuthu Pillai on behalf of the firm of one Kuppuswami Aiyar, now deceased, in Madura, whose agent he was. The Hundi was drawn in favour of one Kolandavelu Pillai, the 2nd plaintiff, as representing the 1st plaintiff's firm on the 23rd of August, 1918, and is for a sum of Rs. 22,066. It was drawn on the 1st defendant's firm in Madras and is marked Ex. A in the case. It was dishonoured when presented to the Madras firm ; notice was given of it to the 1st defendant who was called upon to pay but failed to do so. Hence this suit was brought. Kuppuswami Aiyar died leaving the 2nd and 3rd defendants as his sons and heirs who succeeded to their father's estate and his trade. The 2nd plaintiff has been joined as a plaintiff to avoid any objection as to parties.2. The circumstances under which this Hundi was executed are briefly thes...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaswami Pillai Vs. Govinda Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ678
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. The question in this case is, whether the batta application, dated 18th September, 1918, is a step-in-aid of execution. The application is termed ' Process Application ' and it is to be seen from it that the batta is paid ' to attach the properties in the house of the defendants ' arid ' it is requested that Re. 1 may be received for the above purpose. ' In the left-hand margin of the application I find the words ' Order for attachment of moveables under Order 21, Rule 43. ' In these respects the application in this case is quite different from the one in Arunachalam Chettiar v. Latchumanan Chettiar : (1924)47MLJ537 which appears on examination to have been a simple ' batto memo. ' and nothing more. The decision in that case that such a memo. does not amount to a step-in-aid of execution cannot apply to this case. In my view there are sufficient indications in the process application to show that the applicant in effect asked for attachme...
Tag this Judgment!A. Palaniyappa Chettiar Vs. K.N. Krishnaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad877; (1925)48MLJ696
1. The petitioner asks this Court to set aside the order of the Lower Court in O. P. No. 7 of 1924 on its file. That was a petition under the Election Rules framed under the Madras District Municipalities Act V of 1920 to set aside the election of the present petitioner held on nth February, 1924 for a ward in the Erode Municipality, and for other incidental reliefs.2. The Lower Court found that the petitioner, who was the Vice-Chairman of the Municipality and was acting as Chairman during the temporary absence of the Chairman, had broken Rule 32 of the Rules for the conduct of elections of Municipal Councillors in that he, in the matter of the nomination of candidates for the vacancy in this ward, had himself scrutinised and passed his own nomination paper. Whether in thus holding that there was a breach of Rule 32 he did find at all or did properly find that this violation had materially affected the result of the election and therefore he had jurisdiction to set aside the election, ...
Tag this Judgment!Lingam Veera Raqhava Rao Vs. Mallapragada Gurunatha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad355
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Court, Ganjanl in a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58, The circumstances briefly are as follows:The plaintiff sued in 1903, for the recovery of certain lands, the chief defendant being one Subba Rao, the second defendant in the case. He got a decree which was confirmed by the High Court on appeal in 1909. He got delivery in 1911 and in 1913 he filed E.P. No. 67 of 1913, for mesne profits due under the decree. Subba Rao died while the appeal was pending and his mother was brought on record as his legal representative. She died before the execution petition was filed. In the execution petition, the brothers of Subba Rao were added as legal representatives and the father of Subba Rao, the third defendant in the suit was also made a counter-petitioner. The assets of Subba Rao, in their hands were attached. On 3rd November 1914, this execution petition was struck off the file with directions to the decree holder to renew it after t...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.S.A.R.S. Arunachallam Chettiar Vs. Krishna Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1168; 90Ind.Cas.481
Krishnan, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by the plaintiffs in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Madura, or a hundi or bill of exchange, executed by one Pasimuthu Pillai, on behalf of the firm of one Kuppuswamy Aiyar, now deceased, in Madura, whose agent he was. The hundi was drawn, in favour of one Kolandavelu Pillai, the 2nd plaintiff, as representing the 1st plaintiff's firm, on the 23rd of August, 1918 and is for a sum of Rs. 22,066. It was drawn on the 1st defendant's firm in Madras and is marked Exhibit A in the case. It was dishonored when presented to the Madras firm notice was given of it to the 1st defendant, who was called upon to pay, but failed to do so. Hence, this suit was brought. Kuppuswami Aiyar died, leaving the 2nd and 3rd defendants as his sons and heirs, who succeeded to their father's estate and his trade. The 2nd plaintiff has been joined as a plaintiff to avoid any objection as to parties.2. The circumstances under which this hundi was executed are b...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. N.K. Krishnaswamy Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.368
1. The petitioner asks this Court to set aside the order of the lower Court in O.P. No. 7 of 1924 on its file. That was a petition under the Election Rules framed under the Madras District Municipalities Act, V of 1920, to set aside the election of the present petitioner held on 11th February 1924 for a ward in the Erode Municipality, and for other incidental reliefs.2. The lower Court found that the petitioner, who was the Vice-Chairman of the Municipality and was acting as Chairman during the temporary absence of the Chairman, had broken Rule 32 of the rules for the conduct of elections of Municipal Councillors, in that he, in the matter of the nomination of candidates for the vacancy in this ward, had himself scrutinised and passed his own nomination paper. Whether in thus holding that there was a breach of Rule 32 he did find at all or did properly find that this violation had materially affected the result of the election and, therefore, he had jurisdiction to set aside the electi...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver of Coimbatore Vs. Palaniswami Chetti Alias Ponnu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1051; 88Ind.Cas.934; (1925)49MLJ203
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal is by the Official Receiver of Coimbatore against the order of the District Judge refusing to stay proceedings in O.S. No. 11 of 1924 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Coimbatore, pending the disposal of I.A. No. 161 of 1924. The respondents who are secured creditors filed O.S. No. 11 of 1924, in the Principal Sub-Court of Coimbatore against the insolvent. The Official Receiver was added as a party inasmuch as the defendant had been adjudicated an insolvent in I.P. No. 102 of 1921. The Official Receiver who had information that the mortgage in favour of the respondents was a voidable transaction under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act moved the District Court for declaring that the mortgage was void against him. Pending the disposal of his application, he moved the District Court under Section 10 of the CPC for stay of the proceedings in O.S. No. 11 of 1921. The District Judge held that Section 10 did not apply to the application and dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »