Chennai Court September 1925 Judgments
M.R.M. Ramasami Chetty, Managing Director of M.R.M. Ramasami Chetti an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.892
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petition to revise the judgment and sentence of the Second Presidency Magistrate, in C.C. No. 20052 of 1924.2. The petitioner sold his business to certain persons under a contract dated 1st October 1922. On 7th October 1922 these persons registered themselves as a Company. The Company furnished a return of allotment of shares under Section 101, Act. VII of 1913. The Registrar acting under Section 101 (6) called for the contract in writing entitling the vendor of the business to certain shares allotted otherwise than in cash. The petitioner thought that the contract entered into before the Company was registered would be sufficient; but the Registrar demanded a contract entered into by the Company and since such a contract was not ' in writing, he called for prescribed particulars under Section 104 (2). Instead of furnishing these duly stamped, the petitioner produced the previous contract ratified at a meeting of the Directors. The Registrar held that this was not a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivan Pillai and anr. Vs. T.S. Venkateswara Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.556
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. The revised decree in this scheme suit as passed on March 16th, 1906 by the learned District Judge of Tinnevelly (now Mr. Justice Phillips) provided that the trustee should hold office for a term of 7 years renewable at the Will of the villagers and the Court. New trustees were to hold office upon nomination by the villagers of Tiruvannathapuram and Timmarajapuram, subject to the approval of the District Court. More than twice 7 years had passed, when the matter came up again before the District Judge of Tinnevelly in November 1924. At that time, there was a mahazar dated 16th December 1922, signed by several villagers asking the Court to approve of the nomination of Venkatarama Iyer. There was another mahazar dated 15th December 1923, asking the Court to appoint Venkateswara Iyer, the trustee hitherto in office. While that was pending, the present petitioner and appellant Sivan Pillai, who claimed to have an interest in the trust, filed a petition supporti...
Tag this Judgment!Rathan Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax to the Government of M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad462; (1926)50MLJ157
1. This reference raises two points. The assessee's business is that of an owner of motor-cars plying for hire. Only two points were raised before the learned Judge, though the first was raised under two heads. We propose first to dispose of the second contention.2. The assessee was the owner of a new car which very shortly after it was purchased met with an accident and had to be sold as scrap iron and the learned Judge has held that this entitles him to claim a deduction under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 on the footing that this may be treated as having become in the words of the Act obsolete. It seems to us that this is contrary to the plain meaning of the language used. Obsolete machinery means machinery which though it is able to perform its function has become in common parlance out of date and performs its function so indifferently or at such a cost that a prudent man instead of continuing to use such machinery would discard it and instal more modern ...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Govindan Nair Vs. Kanhirathotikayil Ithalutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad542; (1926)50MLJ213
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S. No. 286 of 1923 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif of Calicut. He sues to redeem certain land granted on kanom, and seeks to deduct from the kanom amount certain damages to which he claims to be entitled. The question is whether he need pay Court-fee only on the kanom amount, or whether, as held by the Lower Court, he must also pay an ad valorem fee on the amount claimed as damages.2. The petitioner relies upon Eacharan Pattar v. Appu Pattar (1895) 19 Mad 16 but there it was simply a question of taking an account of rents due on the original contract. Here, there is the additional cause of action that defendant committed a tort. Reference under Court Fees Act, Section 5(2) is also a question of rents. I do not think that petitioner can draw any useful analogy between improvements and damages. Improvements are specially provided for in Madras Act (I of 1900) and it was early held that they would not affect the Court-f...
Tag this Judgment!Linga Aiyar Alias Ramalinga Aiyar Vs. Lakshumanan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad687; (1926)50MLJ387
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul confirming in part the decree of the District Munsif of Dindigul. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that certain property in the hands of the 1st and 2nd defendants belonged to a debtor of his, Subbaraja Aiyar. The 2nd defendant was Subbaraja Aiyar's widow and the 1st defendant was his brother. The suit was brought in consequence of the allowance of a claim petition in favour of the brother, the 1st defendant. Ex. B is the judgment in O.S. No. 598 of 1917 in which the same plaintiff sued to recover from the widow and the brother certain money due on dealings and promissory notes. The District Munsif in the fourth paragraph of his judgment states as follows: 'By consent I strike off the 2nd defendant's name. Plaintiff will pay by consent half of his costs.'2. The point raised in second appeal is whether the 2nd defendant is in spite of that procedure a party to the suit under Section 47 (expl...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Subramania Aiyar Vs. L.A. Krishna Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ172
Spencer, J.1. The respondent, having attached the appellant's immoveable properties before judgment, obtained a decree for Rs. 2,224-12-0 against him and his mother on 28th January, 1919. Afterwards he applied through E.P. No, 35 of 1924 for sale of the properties which were attached before judgment. In the interval two petitions for executing the same decree had been rejected owing to the execution-petitioner's fault. The appellant filed C. M.P. No. 722 of 1924 on 18th November, 1924, asking (1) that the auction sale fixed for 24th November, 1924 should be stopped, (2) that the whole proceedings in the pending E.P.R. No. 35 should be vacated, and (3) that E. P R. No. 35 should be dismissed. The Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore refused these reliefs and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. From that order the appellant has filed an appeal and a revision petition to the Fligh Court on 2nd March, 1925. The sale took place on 9th February, 1925, and awaits the Lower Court's order of...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayana Reddi and ors. Vs. Koppaya Reddi Alias Gopal Reddi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad236
Phillips, J.1. The sole question that arises in this appeal is the interpretation of the deed of settlement executed by Alagiri Eeddi on the 3rd November 1884. This document contains the following provisions:I have no male issue: I have only a daughter named Avudai Ammal alias Mukkayi Ammal and my wife Avudai Ammal. As I am now, on account of old age, very weak in body, I hereby make the provisions, mentioned below so that my properties, etc., may not pass to the control of others after my lifetime and that they may go to my lawful heirs....The punja land and house site etc., mentioned in Schedule 1 hereof are to be enjoyed by myself and my wife Avudai Ammal during our lifetime; my daughter Avudaiyammal and her husband Ramalinga Reddiar who is also my sister's son are to perform my funeral, etc., ceremonies and enjoy the aforesaid Properties with absolute rights. The properties mentioned in Schedule 2 hereof are to be enjoyed by my daughter Avudaiyammal and my son-in-law Ramalinga Redd...
Tag this Judgment!Linga Iyer Alias Ramalinga Iyer Vs. Lakshmanan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.123
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul confirming in part the decree of the District Munsif of Dindigul. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that certain property in the hands of the 1st and 2nd defendants belonged to a debtor of his, Subbaraya Iyer. The 2nd defendant was Subbaraya Aiyar's widow and the 1st defendant was his brother. The suit was brought in consequence of the allowance of a claim petition in favour of the brother, the 1st defendant. Exhibit B is the judgment in O.S. No. 598 of 1917 in which the same plaintiff sued to recover from the widow and the brother certain money due on dealings and promissory notes; The District Munsif in the fourth paragraph of his judgment states as follows: 'By consent 1 strike off the 2nd defendant's name. Plaintiff will pay by consent half of his costs'.2. The point raised in second appeal is whether the 2nd defendant is in spite of that procedure a party to the suit under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Tharamal Parkam Kalpathoor Thulicha Puthiatuth Sankaran Nair Vs. Urupp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.109; (1925)49MLJ699
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif of Payoli in R.E.P. No. 182 of 1922 in S.C.S. No. 229 of 1910.2. Petitioner obtained a decree on 7th March, 1910. On 28th February, 1922, he applied for attachment promising to furnish a list of immoveables. The application was adjourned from time to time till July 1922, for the appointment of a guardian and then again from time to time till 15th March, 1923, when it was finally dismissed, because the list of immoveables was only produced on 5th April, 1922, after the expiry of 12 years from 7th March, 1910.3. I cannot hold that the order is illegal. The Court has an option under Order XXI, Rule 17, either to reject the application or to allow the defect to be remedied within a time to be fixed by it. Possibly the Munsif might even on 15th March, 1923, have ordered the list of immoveable properties to be produced on 5th April, 1922, which would have dated the petition as from 28th February 1922, and would thus ha...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppannan (Minor) by Mother and Next Friend Kannakkal Vs. Pambayan A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1925
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.39
1. The first question in this civil revision petition is whether the bond sued on, Ex. A, is a slavery bond and, therefore, illegal and opposed to public policy. The District Munsif dismissed the suit solely on the ground that Ex. A is a slavery bond. The terms of the bond are that the executants Nos. 1 and 2 should do pannai work in lieu of interest on the said amount Rs. 100 and if they failed to do pannai work, without any delay, the plaintiff should be at liberty to realise the principal amount and the losses arising therefrom by proceeding against them personally and also against their properties. The terms of this bond differ materially from the terms of the bond which was the subject of consideration in Ram Sarup Bhagat v. Bansi Mandar (2) 51 Ind. Cas. 252 : (1919) M.W.N. 534 : 10 L.W. 202. Here there is no penal interest claimable under the bond. An option is given to the executants to do work or pay the principal sum. The amount is re-payable in three years. The terms of this ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »