Chennai Court November 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.
B. Raja Rajeswara Muthu Ramalinga Sethupathy Avergal Through His Autho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ65
1. Having regard to the definition of the word 'signed' in Section 2, Clause 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, and to the fact that under R. 4 (11) of the Civil Rules of Practice, the same definition has to be applied in the case of affidavits and vakalats, we think that the use of a stamp bearing the name of the party is sufficient even in cases where he is able to sign. Even under the old Code of Civil Procedure of 1877 it was held in The Maharaja of Benares v. Debi Dayal Notna ILR (1881) A 575 that inability to sign was not necessary in order to enable a person to use a stamp. The definition of 'signed' in the present Code is to the effect that except in cases of judgments or decrees 'signed' includes stamped. There is nothing to show that any difference can be drawn between vakalats and affidavits and pleadings. We set aside the order of the District Munsif and direct him to receive and file the papers returned if they are otherwise in order....
Tirumala Reddi Chinnappa Reddi Vs. Kolakula Thomasu Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad265; (1928)54MLJ344
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Judge, refusing to annul the adjudication of one Thomasu Reddi and extending the time within which he has to file his application for discharge. Thomasu Reddi was adjudicated insolvent on the 8th of July, 1924, and one year's time was fixed as the period within which he should apply for his discharge. He did not apply within the period and the time was extended to the 11th of August, 1926. As the insolvent did not apply for his discharge as required by Section 43, an application was put in on the 13th of December, 1926, by the appellant creditor to annul the adjudication. The Official Receiver submitted his report on the 22nd of December, 1926, stating that some properties were sold on the 30th of June, 1925, that a petition was filed in the District Court to set aside the sale and it was dismissed on the 5th of November, 1925, and that C. M. A. No. 149 of 1926 was filed in the High Court against the ord...
T.A.K. Mohideen Pichai Taraganar Vs. Tinnevelly Mills Co. Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad571
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. Of considerable difficulty is the question raised and discussed in these appeals. It relates to the claim of the plaintiff-appellant to require the first defendant company, a company registered under the Companies Act to register in his name certain shares purchased by him at a sale held by Court in execution of a decree and subsequently confirmed.2. We must take it for the purpose of these appeals that the company has refused to register and the first question that arises for determination in that connexion is whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek to enforce his rights by suit. The contention of the learned vakil for the respondents with regard to this matter was that the Indian Companies Act is really in the form of a complete code dealing with all the matters relating to companies and that, therefore, if such enactment has provided a special remedy for the claim in question, then it is open to the aggrieved party to seek to enforce the remedy only by suc...
Pinnamraju Raghunadha Raju Vs. Burra Mariyamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad980
1. We are of opinion that 'the decision of the District Munsif cannot be supported. Section 73, Madras Village Courts Act, as amended, shows that the Court is not bound to interfere even if there is an error of law unless the decree is unjust, or, in other words, if substantial justice has been done. Error of law should not be a ground for interference by the District Munsif. In the present case no plea of limitation was raised and the findings of the village Court are clear that there were dealings between the parties and that the amount claimed is due. The District Munsif's view that the evidence disclosed that there might be question of limitation does not give him any right to interfere. We set aside the order of the District Munsif. The decree of the village Court will stand....
Adivi Lakshmi Rattamma Vs. Akisetti Ranganayaulro
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1927
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.307
Ramesam, J.1. The husband of the appellant before as obtained a decree against a tenant for rent. He obtained an attachment before judgment and after the decree his legal representative, the appellant, was attempting to execute the decree against the property attached. The respondent who claimed the attached property under two bale-deeds (1) from the judgment-debtor to his wife and the 2nd from the wife to himself filed a claim petition under Order XXI, Rule 58. The petition was enquired into by the District Munaif of Bhimavaram. In the order he says 'For the purpose of this petition we are concerned only with the prima facienature of the case.' This shows that he considered the matter as one falling under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The appellant then filed an appeal to the District Court of Masulipatam. Ordinarily appeals lie from Bhimavaram to the Sub-Court, Narasapur. The appeal to the District Court was attempted to be justified on the ground that it was an a...
B. Raja Rajeswara Muthu Ramalinga Sethupathy Avergal Through His Autho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.804
1. Having regard to the definition of the word 'signed' in Section 2 (Clause 20) of the Civil Procedure Code and to the fact that under Rule 4(II) of the Civil Rules of Practice, the same definition has to be applied in the case of affidavits and vakalats, we think that the use of a stamp bearing the name of the party is sufficient even in cases where he is able to sign. Even under the old Code of Civil Procedure of 1877 it was held in the Maharaja of Benares v. Debi Dayal Noma 3 A.P 575 : A.W.N. (1881) 36 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 345 that inability to sign was not necessary in order to enable a person to use a stamp. The definition of 'signed' in the present Code is to the effect that except in cases of judgments or decrees 'signed' includes stamped. There is nothing to show that any difference can be drawn between vakalats and affidavits and pleadings. We set aside the order of the District Munsif and direct him to receive and file the papers returned if they are otherwise in order....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›