Chennai Court March 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.
K.C. Menon Vs. P. Krishna Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad989; 97Ind.Cas.643
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Calicut refusing the petitioner's petition to summon certain witnesses for the prosecution. The petitioner is prosecuting the accused for offences under Section 477(a) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act for concocting false balance sheets, when he was the Managing Director of the Manorama Printing Works in 1921 and 1922, in particular for showing an inflated and false value of the stock in hand, and including in the Company's stock the full value of books only sent to them for sale on commission. The petitioner filed his complaint on 3rd November, 1925, naming three witnesses. At that time the books-of the Company had been impounded and were in the lower Court. His witnesses were examined on 23rd and 24th November, 1923 and cross examined on 5th and 6th December 1925. The petitioner put in a further list of four witnesses styled 'Experts in valuation' and the ...
M.V. Maya Nadan and Brothers Vs. Arunachallam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.981
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. Whatever difficulty there may be in this case arises in my opinion, not from any doubt or uncertainty as to the legal principles applicable to it but in the application of those principles to so complicated a thing as the type of signature in vogue among Nattukottai Chetty firms or indeed at times among Nattukottai Chetty individuals.2. The suit is brought on a promissory note dated 20th February, 1911. The liability of the 1st defendant is sought to be enforced on two grounds; (1) that the signature to the note is on the face .of it an unqualified assumption by him of personal liability; (2) that in any event, if the signature be held to be merely that of a firm, he was in fact a partner in that firm or alternatively held himself out as being such. The 1st defendant's name is Arunachallam Chetty and he is the son of a man called A. Ponsivalai Chetty. There is no doubt that A. Ponsivalai Chetty entered into partnership with a firm trading under the ...
Thandavaraya Pillai Vs. Kuppuswami Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.605
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The mortgagee-decree-holder-purchaser is the appellant. The appeal arises out of an application under Order XXI, Rule 100 made by the respondent for being put into possession, as he was wrongfully dispossessed by the decree-holder in execution of his mortgage decree. The appeal relates only to properties covered by Schedules C and D to the decree. These properties were mortgaged to the decree-holder by defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who were members of a joint undivided family. Defendants Nos. 2 and 6 had sold these properties prior to the mortgage to the respondent who was the 7th defendant in the suit. It was decided in the mortgage suit that the decree-holder was entitled to get the shares only of defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the plaint 0 and D schedule pro perties. As a matter of fact the sale certificate issued to him covered more than what he was rightly entitled to under the judgment and decree and in execution of that decree he dispossessed the present responde...
C.S. Govindaraja Mudaliar, Receiver, Sri Komaleswara Temple Properties ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad911; 97Ind.Cas.212; (1926)51MLJ194
Krishnan, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether 'a suit brought by a Receiver of temple properties to set aside a number of leases granted by a previous trustee of the temple, of various portions of one block of property, to different tenants separately on different 'dates and to recover the portions so demised from them respectively is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action'2. In a suit brought under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure to remove the trustee and to frame a, scheme, etc., plaintiff was appointed Receiver and was directed to recover the temple properties. The suit properties are held by the various defendants under several leases all for 99 years granted by the trustee. Plaintiff claims that it was beyond the powers of the trustee to grant leases for such a long period and seeks to invalidate them on that ground and to recover the properties ejecting the defendants. Defendants urge, among other pleas, that the alienations are valid in ...
Ramasankara Aiyar Sankaranarayana Aiyar Vs. the Firm of V.K.R. Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.475; (1926)51MLJ326
1. This is an appeal by the 2nd respondent in the Lower Court against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly adjudicating him an insolvent. The learned Judge finds that the 1st respondent's property was attached and sold on the 23rd June, 1922 and that amounts to an act of bankruptcy on the part of the appellant. The appellant and the 2nd respondent herein were partners in trade. A decree was obtained against the partnership and the property of the 2nd respondent herein was attached and brought to sale. under Section 6(e) of the Provincial Insolvency Act a person commits an act of insolvency if any of his property has been sold in execution of a decree of any Court for payment of money. No property of the appellant was sold in execution of a decree for money. The contention on behalf of the 1st respondent is that the attachment and sale of property of a partner is sufficient to bring the appellant within the provisions of Section 6(e). Sub-section (e) refers only to the property...
(Krovi) Subba Rao Vs. (Dhulipala) Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1104
Coutts-Trotter, C. J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant here and he lost his suit because both the lower Courts have found as a fact that the document on which he relied as showing his title to the property was not merely a voidable instrument as being executed to defraud creditors, though a real transfer properly made, but was a. colourable transaction throughout leaving all the beneficial interest of possession in the property in the assignor. That being so, it would be covered not merely by the Full Bench decision in Bamaswami Chettiar v. Mallappa Reddiar [1920] 43 Mad. 760 but it would be covered by my own judgment in Palaniandi Chetty v. Appavu Chettiar : (1916)30MLJ565 where I guarded myself expressly by saying that had the transaction been a merely colourable one the plaintiff would not have succeeded in his action. The further point that I held, that in cases where the transaction was not void, but merely voidable the plaintiff's remedy was merely to bring proceedings for the ex...
T.S.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiyar Vs. K.T. Abdul Kuddus Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad978
Krishnan, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 127-3-0 as the amount due to him for Faslis 1330 to 1332 under a contract by which the defendant was given the right to cut and remove the bark of the Avaram plants growing in the plaint mentioned village. The annual amount payable was Rs. 40. The contract pleaded between the parties is an oral one and there is no written document to evidence it, but the defendant has admitted the terms of the contract. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground that without a registered lease the right to take the Avaram bark from the trees growing upon the plaintiff's land could not be transferred under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. The argument is that 'the lease being one for 5 years ought to the evidenced by a registered instrument.' The learned Munsif accepted this contention and rejected the further argument that, if it was a lease, it was an agricultural lease. Section 117 excluded the application o...
T.S.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar Represented by His Agent C.T.A. Swaminatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.548
Krishnan, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 127 3-0 as the amount due to him for Faslis 1330 to 1332 under a contract by which the defendant was given the right to cut and remove the bark of the avaram plants growing in the plaint mentioned village. The annual amount payable was Rs. 40. The contract pleaded between the parties is an oral one and there is no written document to evidence it; but the defendant has admitted the terms of the contract. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground that without a registered lease, the right to take the avaram bark from the trees growing upon the plaintiff's land could not be transferred under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. The argument is that the lease being one for five years ought to be evidenced by a registered instrument. The learned Munsif accepted this contention and rejected the further argument that, if it was a lease, it was an agricultural lease and Section 117 excluded the applicati...
Ramasankara Iyer and anr. Vs. the Firm of V.K.R. Krishna Iyer and Sons ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.393
1. This is an appeal by the 2nd respondent in the lower Court against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly adjudicating him an insolvent. The learned Judge finds that the 1st respondent's property was attached and sold on the 23rd June, 1922, and that amounts to an act of bankruptcy on the part of the appellant. The appellant and the 2nd respondent herein were partners in trade. A decree was obtained against the partnership and the property of the 2nd respondent herein was attached and brought to sale. Under Section 6(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, a person commits an act of insolvency if any of his property has been sold in execution of a decree of any Court for payment of money. The contention on behalf of the 1st respondent is that the attachment and sale of property of a partner is sufficient to bring the appellant within the provision of Section 6(e). Sub-section (3) refers only to the property of the person against whom an application for adjudication is made. It c...
Woriur Commercial Bank, Limited, by Its Secretary Swaminatha Pillai Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ523
1. We are unable to agree with the decisions of the Courts below that the surety was entitled to be discharged. In his bond he made two undertakings, viz. (1) that the judgment-debtor would within 30 days apply to be adjudicated insolvent and (2) that he (the surety) would produce the judgment-debtor on the dates fixed for his production. He agreed that on failure to comply with either of these conditions, he would himself satisfy the decree. His liability was not made to depend on the happening of the double event, viz., failure of the judgment-debtor to present an insolvency petition and failure of the surety to produce the judgment-debtor on the dates fixed. The security bond was in fact drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for the security, being realised when there is any undertaking both to apply and to appear and a failure to comply with both undertakings.2. The section has been so understood in the Courts of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »