Chennai Court October 1927 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.
Taluk Board Vs. V.S.P. Chockalingam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad212
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Devakottai decreeing the suit for the return of the amount collected as profession tax from plaintiff by the Taluk Board of Devakottai.2. The contention of Mr. Ramaswami Iyer for the petitioner is that the respondent resides within the limits and therefore is liable under the Act. Under Section 93, Local Boards Act, persons who hold any appointment, public or private, or are in receipt of any pension or income from investments are exempted from paying profession tax. This proviso was evidently overlooked by the Taluk Board when it assessed the petitioner. The petitioner is only a Chetti's agent receiving a salary and is not carrying on any other profession within the local limits of the Taluk Board of Devakottai. He is a resident of Palni and Mr. Sampath Aiyangar says that he has paid profession tax in Palni as he is liable under the District Municipalities Act to pay profession tax even though he is i...
Muhammad ShamsdIn Alim Sahib Vs. Municipal Council of Tiruvalur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad348
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Tiruvalur dismissing the plaintiff's suit for a refund of the excess house tax collected from him. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that it could not be maintained as no proper appeal was filed and even if it was filed it was not properly conducted. The main question in this case is whether notice of the enhanced assessment was served upon the assessee, the petitioner. Before house tax could be collected, notice of the assessment should be given to the assessee and such notice should be properly served in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this case the petitioner stated that he did not receive any notice of the assessment. What were relied upon by the defendant, the Municipal Council, were two notices Exs. E and F which appear to be notices not of the enhancement but of the usual assessment. The respondent's vakil is not able to show that notice of the enhanced assessmen...
Sataka Muhammad and anr. Vs. M. Hayath Batcha Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.813
1. This is an appeal against an order of Curgenven, J., refusing to stay execution in a civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 107 of the Government of India Act.2. The first question is whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the order under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent which as it is now amended expressly states that there is no appeal against an order made in the exercise of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction. It is conceded that no appeal would lie against an order passed by the High Court in the revision petition itself. It seems to us then that there can be no appeal against any interlocutory orders passed in the revision petition. Where a civil revision petition is filed and interlocutory applications are made in the civil revision petition for reliefs, the High Court can only act in its exercise of revisional jurisdiction in dealing with those applications. It is difficult to see how an appeal would lie havi...
Narayanan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Suppiah Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad402
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Devakotta allowing an amendment of the plaint at the instance of the plaintiffs-respondents herein. The plaintiffs and defendants are Nat-tukottai Chetties and the plaintiffs' suit is for dissolution of partnership and other incidental reliefs. The plaintiffs got leave to amend the plaint more than once and on the third occasion they asked leave to amend the plaint by including a relief as regards a firm at Kolalampur, Straits Settlements. The contention of Mr. Rangachariar, for the petitioner, is that the plaintiffs abandoned their claim, if any, in respect of the firm at Kolalampur and they should not now be allowed to include a claim which they deliberately abandoned and secondly that this amendment introduces a new cause of action which would materially prejudice the defendants in their defence and therefore the amendments should not be allowed. The plaintiffs are father and son. Plainti...
S. Kanthavadivelu Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ357
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. These two appeals arise out of suits instituted with reference to the Madras Heriditary Village Offices Act III of 1895. The facts are briefly these. The village relating to the suit office was constituted into a separate village by separation and thereupon under Section 6 of the said Act new village offices were created in respect of the village. The Collector whose duty it is to select persons for the purpose of appointing to those offices is directed by Section 6 as follows:In choosing persons to fill such new offices the Collector shall select the persons whom he may consider the best qualified from among the families of the last holders of the offices which have been abolished.It appears that the Collector appointed to the village office in question the predecessor in interest of the 1st defendant in the suit. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for a declaration that the appointment by the Collector of the 1st defendant's predecessor was not a proper ap...
Muthukathan Ambalagaran and Two ors. Vs. Gopinada Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.68; (1928)54MLJ267
1. The question in this case is whether the appellants-sureties are liable on the bond executed by them. The bond is not dated but was filed in Court on the 19th March, 1925, and the appellants bound themselves to pay the decree amount if the defendant who was arrested in execution of the decree did not file the schedule in 30 days or did not prosecute the proceedings after filing the schedule or if he was not produced in Court whenever the Court called upon the sureties to produce him. The petition for releasing the defendant was filed on the 19th and on the same date the sureties put in this bond. The decree-holder's vakil however did not consent to the release, but stated that he wanted time to ascertain about the competence of the sureties. The Court passed the following order:The decree-holder's vakil wants time to ascertain about the competency of the sureties. Call on 23rd March, 1925. Let it be also tested in the meantime.On 23rd March, 1925, the security bond was accepted by t...
Sheik Dawood and Two ors. Vs. Velayuda Semmanotti and Ten ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad194; 108Ind.Cas.65; (1928)54MLJ312
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of West Tanjore, setting aside the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate with regard to the disposal of boats and nets.2. The contention of Mr. Jayarama Aiyar for the petitioners is that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the order as he did not enquire into the case himself and as an appellate Court he was not justified in interfering with the order of the lower court. The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Pattukotta passed an order on 19th September, 1926, with regard to the boats and nets directing that they be delivered to the fishermen. On 5th November, 1926, in modification of the previous order he passed another order that the boats and nets-should be delivered to the Muhammadans.3. The question for consideration is whether the order of the Magistrate, dated 5th November, 1926, was proper or improper. That was the order that was set aside by the Sessions Judge. The contention of Mr. Jayarama ...
Kavuri Subbiah Vs. Yabursu Bala Tripurasundra Boyamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.318; (1928)54MLJ582
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition has not appeared and therefore on behalf of the petitioner it has been argued ex parte. But giving the matter such consideration as I have been able to give, I have come to the conclusion that the order of the lower court was clearly wrong and without jurisdiction. The petitioner in this Court was 3rd respondent in a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis. Pending the disposal of that petition the petitioner died and thereupon the respondent in this Court applied to the lower court as the mother and legal representative of the deceased petitioner to be brought on the record as the legal representative of the deceased petitioner and for being allowed further to prosecute the petition. I do not see anything in the petition itself to the effect that she was either prepared to continue the proceedings paying the necessary court-fee in respect of the petition allowing the same being treated as a plaint or anything ...
K. Venkatarama Ayyar and Five ors. Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ585
1. In this case the father of the petitioner filed an application for adjudicating himself as an insolvent. The learned District Judge appointed an interim receiver and transferred the petition for disposal to the Official Receiver. Before the petitioner was adjudicated, he died. The Official Receiver later on adjudicated him as an insolvent and asked for orders of the court for administering the estate and orders were passed by the learned District Judge. The petitioners filed an application before the learned Judge contending that as their father died before adjudication they were entitled to get his property back 'free from proceedings in insolvency. The learned District Judge overruled their contention and stated that their objections as regards the actual administration of the property might be brought to the notice of the Official Receiver. In appeal, the same point has been argued before us, namely, that there was no jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioners' father as an insol...
M.S. Kailasanada Sarma Vs. the President, District Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad211
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. The decree was for a small portion of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He sued for damages for breach of contract by the defendant, the District Board, Tanjore. The agreement between the parties is embodied in Ex. 13. Under the agreement the chatram manager had to supply paddy for being husked. The plaintiff was to husk the paddy and deliver it. There is no dispute as to quantities. The Subordinate Judge found that both the parties broke the contract and the plaintiff was not entitled to damage. The contention of Mr. Ranganadha Ayyar for the petitioner is that his act did not amount to a breach of contract. Sir K. V. Reddi for the respondent contends that inasmuch as the plaintiff did not deliver 286 measures of husked rice, he must be deemed to have broken the contract, and under Clause 5 of the contract, if the plaintiff failed to take paddy to be husked or fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »