Chennai Court December 1926 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.
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. O.R.M.O.E.S. Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.12
1. The Official Assignee of Madras who is the appellant in this case took out a garnishee application in the matter of the Insolvency of M.E.V.S.M. Doraiswami Chetty & Co. against the respondent firm for an order declaring that a sum of Rs. 10,000 which belonged to the insolvents and came into the hands of the respondent firm, was a payment made by the insolvents when they were in insolvent circumstances and that the same was a fraudulent preference and asking for consequent reliefs.2. Mr. Justice Beasley by whom the application was heard dismissed it with costs holding that what was proved by the Official Assignee at the hearing of the application could not possibly be held to constitute any payment by the insolvents by way of undue or fraudulent preference. The learned Judge also incidentally refused the application of the Official Assignee for amendment of the application or even the withdrawal of the application with liberty to make a fresh application. In brief, the conclusion arr...
Ram Narayana Sarma Vs. the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ285
Waller, J.1. This appeal raises a novel and somewhat difficult question. The appellant was in the service of Government. In January 1921 he applied for and was granted leave for 18 months. Under the rules governing the conduct of public servants he was prohibited from working for another employer while on leave without the permission of the authority empowered to appoint him. The same prohibition is to be found in Rule 69 of the Fundamental Rules. In breach of the rule he obtained employment from Messrs. Jackson and Barker in Madras without the requisite permission from 3rd January 1921. Thirteen days later he applied for permission without disclosing the fact that he had already secured private employment. On 11th March permission was definitely refused. Despite the refusal he continued to be in the service of Messrs. Jackson and Barker. This fact came to the notice of the Chief Engineer of the P.W.D. who, in August, 1922, called upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. ...
K.B. Narasimha Chettiar Vs. K.P. Balakrishna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad487; 101Ind.Cas.651; (1927)52MLJ512
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question for decision, in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the respondent's application' to set aside the ex parte decree in S.C.S. No. 296 of 1925 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Karur is barred by limitation. The decree was passed on the 19th of July, 1926. Article 164 of the Limitation Act prescribes 30 days for an application of this nature and time begins to run from the date of the decree or where the summons was not duly served, when the applicant has knowledge of the decree. The respondent's case is that the summons was not duly served upon him' and that he came to know of the decree about 15 days before he made this application. In order to succeed in this application, it is clear that the respondent must prove these necessary facts.2. In this case the learned Judge who passed the ex parte decree after satisfying himself that there was reason to believe that the respondent was keeping out of the way from service had ordered tha...
Ram Narayana Sarma Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad460; 101Ind.Cas.23
Waller, J.1. This appeal raised a novel and somewhat difficult question. The appellant was in the service of Government. In January 1921, he applied for and was granted leave for 18 months. Under the Rules governing the conduct of public servants he was prohibited from working for another employer while on leave without the permission of the authority empowered to appoint him. The same prohibition is to be found in Rule 69 of the Fundamental Rules. In breach of the rule he obtained employment from Messrs. Jackson and Barkar, in Madras, without the requisite permission, from 3rd January 1921. Thirteen days later, he applied for permission without disclosing the fact that he had already secured private employment. On 11th March permission was definitely refused. Despite the refusal he continued to be in the service of Messrs. Jackson and Barkar. This fact came to the notice of the Engineer of the P. W. D., who in August 1922, called upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. ...
Sinthamani Chetti and ors. Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1060a
Devadoss, J1. This case has been very fully and ably argued on both sides. The plaintiff took a sub-lease of some property from the lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari and contracted to transfer it to defendant 2's father. As he refused to carry out the contract O. S. 195 of 1911 was filed for specific performance of the contract. It was decreed by the District Munsif, and on appeal the District Court confirmed the District Munsif's decree and the plaintiff, who was the defendant in that suit, preferred S. A. No. 248 of 1916 which was dismissed by a Bench of the High Court; thereupon the plaintiff executed Exhibit-B in accordance with the decree of the High Court in second appeal. He now sues the defendants for recovery of rents and charges paid by him during the pendency of the suit for specific performance. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit and the District Judge of Ramnad has given him a decree for Rs. 2,644-5-7. Defendants 3 and 4 and the legal representatives of ...
Muthukumarasamiah Pillai Vs. Subramanian Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1105
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed on the basis of a hypothecation bond executed by defendants 1 and 2 who were the subscribers to a chit fund as security for the payment of future instalments of the chit, they having drawn a prize in connexion with a half share they were holding. Defendant 4 who is the appellant before me is the purchaser of their properties subject to the hypothecation bond.2. Only two points have been argued before me; (1) that the 3rd, 4th and 5th instalments have been paid by defendants 1 and 2. In support of this an account book Ex. 5 of defendants 1 and 2 has been filed. The District Munsif relying on Ex. 5 finds the point in favour of the defendants. He thinks that the entries in Ex. 5 exactly correspond both in respect of the dates and the amounts to the instalments which were due. The Subordinate Judge points out that this was incorrect and no argument has been adduced before me to show that the Sub-ordinate Judge's view is erroneous ...
Muthukumaraswami Pillai Vs. Subramania Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.14
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed on the basis of a hypothecation bond executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who were the subscribers to a chit-fund as security for the payment of future instalments of the chit, they having drawn a prize in connection with a half share they were holding. The 4th defendant who is the appellant before me is the purchaser of their properties subject to the hypothecation bond.2. Only two points have been argued before me(1) that the 3rd, 4th and 5th instalments have been paid by the 1st and 2nd defendants. In support of this an account book Ex. V of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 has been filed. The District Munsif relying on Ex. V finds the point in favour of the defendants. He thinks that the entries in Ex. V exactly correspond both in respect of the dates and the amounts to the instalments which were due. The Subordinate Judge points out that this was incorrect and no argument has been addressed before me to show that the Subordinate Ju...
P. M.A.M. Vellaiyappa Chetty and ors. Vs. Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad386; (1927)52MLJ229
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit by certain minor plaintiffs represented by their mother Chin-nammal as their next friend for maintenance against the 1 st defendant in the first instance. The learned Judge on the Original Side has given a decree to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 100 a month for each of the two boys, the first two plaintiffs, for their lifetime and Rs. 50 a month to the girl, the 3rd plaintiff, till she attains the age of 18. The appeal is against this decree by defendants 2 to 5.2. The plaintiffs' case is that they are the sons of the 1st defendant by their mother Chinnammal who was a continuously and exclusively kept concubine of the 1st defendant, Muthiah Chetty, and that as Sudras they are entitled to at least a right of maintenance against their putative father. Muthiah Chetty died after filing the written statement in which he denied that these plaintiffs were his children. He also denied that Chinnammal was a continuously and exclusively kept concubi...
Raja Venkataramayya Vs. Kamisetti Ghattayya, Minor by Mother and Guard ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1926
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ216
Waller, J.1. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal of the defendants 2 and 3 and reversed the decision of the District Munsif on the sole ground that the plaintiff's mortgage was not duly attested, although the defendants admitted in para. 4 of their written statement that Balasubbarayudu executed it and although there was no issue directly on this point of attestation and that the plaintiff's attention was not called to the necessity of his proving that the attestors to the mortgage document saw the executant signing.2. It was held by a Bench of this Court in Rangasami Aiyangar v. Veeraraghavachariar (1923) 46 MLJ 56 that such an objection should not be allowed to be taken for the first time in the Appellate Court. There was, however, an issue here (Issue 2) whether the plaintiff's mortgage was valid and binding on defendants 2 and 3; and upon this issue the District Munsif considered the question as to validity of the attestation and decided it in plaintiff's favour as the wr...
K.R.M. Singaram Chettiar Vs. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad462; (1927)53MLJ545
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of an election to a temple committee and the question is whether the election of the 7th defendant is valid. A vacancy was caused in the Devasthanam Committee by the death of one Ponnusami Nadan. Thereupon there was a resolution passed on the 18th January, 1920, that the 1st defendant who was said to be the managing member should issue notices in connection with it, appoint the tellers and take the necessary steps for holding an election, that the voters' list prepared in 1908 be the basis for such an election and that the election be fixed to take place on the 22nd February, 1920. The 6th defendant objected to this resolution on the ground that a correct list of voters had not been prepared in spite of the resolution of the committee to that effect passed on December 18, that the list of 1908 was old and defective and did not, contain the names of more than 5 per cent. of the legitimate number of voters. Both the Courts find that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »