Chennai Court April 1925 Judgments
Kallukutti Parambath Perachan Vs. Puthen Peetikakkal Kuttiali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad123; (1925)49MLJ595
Ramesam, J.1. In this case the insolvency petition was put in on the 8th January, 1920, and the petitioner was adjudicated an insolvent on the 4th of June, 1920. Meanwhile, Act V of 1920 had come into force on the 25th of February, 1920. At the time of adjudication the Court fixed one year as the period within which he should apply for discharge. This order was based obviously under Section 27 of Act V of 1920 as the old Act III of 1907 contained no such provision. He not having applied within one year the District Munsif of Calicut annulled the order of adjudication and the District Judge of South Malabar affirmed the order on appeal. The present revision petition before me is against the order of the District Judge.2. It has been contended before me that as the petition was filed under the old Act the petitioner obtained a vested right to an unconditional order of discharge and the District Munsifs Court had no jurisdiction to impose a condition that discharge must be applied for wit...
Tag this Judgment!Donepudi Narasayya and anr. Vs. Chiguluri Venkiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1252; (1925)49MLJ784
ORDERKrishnan, J. 1. This is an application to revise certain proceedings passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Masulipatam, in connection with an application filed by the petitioner asking the Magistrate to take action underSection 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate stating that he was satisfied that there was a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace passed a preliminary order underSection 145 and directed the parties to attend his Court and to file written statements of their respective claims as regards the possession of the subject-matter in dispute. At a subsequent stage, the Magistrate, became satisfied that there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace and he, therefore, dropped the proceedings and passed no orders underSection 145 regarding possession of the property.2. The first point taken before me in revision is that the Magistrate was not entitled to drop proceedings without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show by evidence that there...
Tag this Judgment!Kallukutty Parambath Perachan Vs. Puthen Peetikakkal Kuttiali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.144
Ramesam, J.1. In this case the insolvency petition was put in on the 8th of January 1920 and the petitioner was adjudicated an insolvent on the 4th of June 1920. Meanwhile, Act V of 1920 had come into force on the 25th of February 1920. At the time of adjudication, the Oourt fixed one year as the period within which he should apply for discharge. This order was based obviously under Section 27 of Act V of 1920 as the old Act III of 1907 contained no such provision. He not having applied within one year, the District Munsif of Calicut annulled the order of adjudication and the District Judge of South Malabar affirmed the order of appeal. The present revision petition before me is against the order of the District Judge.2. It has been contended before me that, as the petition was filed under the old Act, the petitioner obtained a vested right to an unconditional order of discharge and the District Munsif's Court had no jurisdiction to impose a condition that discharge must be applied for...
Tag this Judgment!Denepudi Narasayya and anr. Vs. Chiguluri Venkiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.399
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise certain proceedings passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Masulipatam, in connection with an application filed by the petitioner asking the Magistrate to take action under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.2. The Magistrate stating that he was satisfied that there was a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace, passed a preliminary order under Section 145 and directed the parties to attend his Court and to file written statements of their respective claims as regards the possession of the subject matter in dispute. At a subsequent stage, the Magistrate became satisfied that there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace and he, therefore, dropped the proceedings, and passed no orders under Section 145 regarding possession of the property.3. The first point taken before me in revision is that the Magistrate was not entitled to drop proceedings without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show by evidence that there was a likel...
Tag this Judgment!Nomula Narasimha Vs. Vasam Mangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.556
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I regret to have to reverse the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss the suit of this unfortunate plaintiff, but I am afraid on the materials no other course is possible. Venkatesam was the foster son of Venkatamma and they settled by Ex. C on Mangamma the plaintiff, the house in question. This was oh the 12th of July 1890. The deed was executed just on the eve of the marriage of Venkatesam with the plaintiff and there is no dispute that the plaintiff practically never resided with her husband in the plaint house. It is clear beyond any possibility of doubt that at any rate since 1890 the plaintiff has not been living in this house. The present suit was instituted in 1920. It is necessary to set forth in some detail the history of the relations between Venkatamma and Venkatesam on the one hand and the plaintiff on the other. Owing to misunderstandings, the plaintiff did not go to live with her husband and on the 24th of July 1901 the mother and the son e...
Tag this Judgment!Munuswami Nayakar Vs. Abdul Azeez Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ557
Devadoss, J. 1. This appeal is by the 1st defendant. He purchased some property belonging to a mosque in St. Thomas Mount from the Mutwali, the 3rd defendant in the suit, for Rs. 1,000. After the purchase some persons interested in the mosque brought the present suit for setting aside the sale on the ground that the sale was not binding on the trust. The District Munsif dismissed the suit but on appeal the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour. Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar, who appears for the 1st defendant, does not object to the judgment of the Appellate Court so far as it sets aside the sale in favour of the plaintiffs. But his contention is that inasmuch as the trust was benefited by the sale to him, the trust is bound to pay back to him the amount which it received from him by sale of the property. The property was sold to the 1st defendant, and out of the sale proceeds another property was purchased in St. Thomas Mount. The Mutwali and the persons who ...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Periyamianna Marakkayar and Sons Vs. Banians and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad544
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents who were the dubashes of the 1st defendant Company for the recovery of Rs. 73,117-5-7 from the 1st defendant or in the alternative to direct the 2nd defendant to pay either the plaintiffs or the 1st defendant the amount due by them.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that by a dubash agreement dated the 21st of November 1912 entered into between them and the 1st defendant they were appointed banians or dubashes of the 1st defendant to push certain branches of the business of the 1st defendant; that the said agreement inter alia provided that the plaintiffs were to guarantee the due completion of all contracts entered into by merchants with the 1st defendant and covered by the agreement in consideration of the plaintiffs receiving certain rates of commission ; that the plaintiffs deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 for the due performance by them of the terms of their agreement with the 1st defendant: that a su...
Tag this Judgment!Munuswamy Nayakar Vs. Abdul Azeez Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.724
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal is by the 1st defendant. He purchased certain property belonging to a mosque in St. Thomas Mount from the muttwalli, the 3rd defendant in the suit for Rs. 1,000. After the purchase some persons interested in the mosque, bright the present suit for setting aside the sale on the ground that the sale was not binding on the trust. The District Munsif dismissed the suit but on appeal the Subordinate Judge, of Chingleput decreed the suit in plaintiffs favour. Mr. Anantakrishna Iyer, who, appears, for the 1st defendant does not object to the judgment of the Appellate Court so far as it sets aside the sale in favour of the plaintiffs. But his contention is that inasmuch as the trust was benefited by the sale to him, the trust is bound to pay back to him the amount which it received from him by sale of the property. The property was sold to the 1st defendant, and out of the sale-proceeds another property was purchased in St. Thomas Mount. The mutwalli and the persons ...
Tag this Judgment!K. V. Perlyamanna Marakkayar and Sons Vs. Banians and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1925
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.154
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents who were the Dubashes of the 1st defendant company for the recovery of Rs. 73,117 5-7 from the 1st defendant or in the alternative to direct the 2nd defendant -to pay either the plaintiffs or the 1st defendant the amount due by them.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that by a Dubash agreement dated the 21st of November 1912 entered into between them and the 1st defendant, they Were appointed Banians or Dubashes of the 1st defendant to push certain, branches of the business of the 1st defendant, that the said agreement inter alia provided that the. plaintiffs were to guarantee the due completion of all contracts entered into by merchants with the is defendant and covered by the agreement in consideration of the plaintiffs receiving certain rates of commission, that the plaintiffs deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 for the due performance by them of. the terms of their agreement with the 1st defendant, that a...
Tag this Judgment!Audiyappa Naidu Vs. Muthulakshmi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1281
1. As the respondent's vakil has no instructions we have not had the advantage of hearing arguments on both sides. Mr. Muthukrishna Ayyar for the appellant has very fairly placed the facts and the law arising out of the parties' contentions before us. The main question to be decided is whether two trust deeds, Exs. B and B-1, one being in favour of a Pilliar temple and the other for the feeding of Brahmins, are valid and binding on the executor of Ramalingam Pillai and the members of his family. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of both. So far as B-1, a registered trust deed of 1914, is concerned, we have no doubt that he was right in treating it as valid. It was made on the occasion of Ramalingam's father's and mother's and brother's deaths and the only other co-parcener in the family, Muthuvelu, consented to it and was himself constituted a trustee under it. It was held in Ramalinga Chetti v. Sivachidambara Chetty (1919) 42 Mad. 440, that the manager of a Hindu family could ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »