Chennai Court March 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.
Athimoolam Servai and anr. Vs. R.M. Gopalakrishna Kone
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad921; (1928)54MLJ269
Jackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura in O.P. No. 22 of 1925.2. The petitioners (two electors) were applying to set aside the election to the Madura Municipal Council of the counter-petitioner. On the day of hearing they were not ready with their witnesses, and the Court summarily dismissed their petition. The witnesses then available should have been present, and they have no legitimate grievance on this account. But, and this is the gravamen of the petition, the main bulk of their evidence had already been shut out by the order of the court on 12th December, 1925. They alleged that the counter-petitioner had by deceitful means procured the improper entry of names in the electoral roll, an election offence under Section 52 of Act V of 1920. Rule 11 of the Rules for the decision of election disputes provides that the returned candidate may be unseated if in the opinion of the Judge he has committed an offence described i...
A.M. Ponnuswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. the British India Steam Navigati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.196; (1928)54MLJ636
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a somewhat difficult case raising a somewhat interesting question of maritime law. The plaintiff, Who is the appellant before me, instituted the suit against the British India Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., and the Madura Co., Ltd., making both of them defendants and claiming the value of 109 bags of rice alleged by him not to have been duly delivered according to the terms of the bill of lading in respect of a consignment of a very large quantity of bags of rice and broken rice consigned to him from Rangoon. The total quantity of the bags short-delivered to him was 335. Out of these it is found that in respect of 102 bags and another lot of 15 he got paid by the Insurance Company and in respect of another quantity of 108 bags the defendant companies or company admitted liability and paid the value. Out of the remaining 110 bags the plaintiff admitted that one bag out of the total 222 which were found to have been damaged by sea water bore his marks and th...
C.T. Narasa Reddi Vs. Hajee Tar Mohammad Aycob Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ710
Odgers, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Jackson, dated the 22nd February, 1927, refusing to transfer the suit of the plaintiff Hajee Tar Mahomed Ayoob Sait from the City Civil Court to the Court of the District Munsif of Vellore. Hajee Tar Mahomed and the defendant in the City Civil Court suit, C. T. Narasa Reddi, did business together and the City Civil Court suit alleges that the defendant owes the plaintiff a sum of about Rs. 1,300. Subsequently, C. T. Narasa Reddi filed a suit in the Vellore Court against Hajee Tar Mahomed Ayoob Sait, alleging that on the other hand a sum of about Rs. 700 was due to himself. Narasa Reddi moved the High Court to transfer the City Civil suit to the Vellore Court. This was refused and the matter now comes before us on Letters Patent Appeal. Now the question is whether this is a matter within the purview of the Full Bench case in Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar ILR (1912) M 1 : 1912 21 MLJ 1. This case has recently ...
In Re: Venkatasami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad996
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the Sessions Judge of Madura under Section 476, Criminal P. C., complaining against him for perjury in that in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1925 he swore:He told me in a very low tone that he had beaten him.2. The learned Judge has not indicated in his complaint any reason for holding that this statement is false. He merely gives it as his opinion that it is false. In an order of a week previous, the learned Judge, quoting Queen v. Ahmed Ally 11 W. R. Cr. 25 agrees that the opinion of a medical witness should not be considered as conclusive against the testimony of eyewitnesses. He says thatin the present case there is no reliable evidence of eyewitnesses running counter to the evidence of the medical witness and .obviously there is a clear prima facie case against the petitioner.3. From these two proceedings it would be impossible to discover why the petitioner is being prosecuted. But further light is thrown on the matter by ref...
(Syed) Abdul Huck and ors. Vs. Seetamsetti Narayan Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad14
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that the lower Courts were wrong in re-trying the whole case as the judgment of the High Court cannot be said to have upset the concurrent findings of two Courts. This contention is untenable in view of the clear wording of the judgment of the High Court:As the discussion on the question of adverse possession has proceeded on a wrong view of the law, we think the safe course is to reverse the judgments of the Courts below and remind the suit to the Court of first instance for disposal in the light of our observations.2. It is clear from this that the learned Judges who decided the second appeal set aside the judgments of both the lower Courts and directed the case to be re-tried.3. The next point urged is that the purchase in the name of one brother was for benefit of the whole family and the property purchased should not be considered as the sole property of the person in whose name the sale was taken. As the learned Judge ...
In Re: Venkataswami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.831
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the Sessions Judge of Madura under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, complaining against him for perjury, in that in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1925 he swore: 'He told me in a very low tone...that he had beaten his son and, therefore, his son and son-in-law had both beaten him.' The learned Judge has not indicated in his complaint any reason for holding that this statement is false. He merely gives it as his opinion that it is false. In an order of a week previous the learned Judge quoting Queen v. Ahmed Ally 11 W.R. Cr. 25 agrees that the opinion of a medical witness should not be considered witnesses. He says that 'in the present case there is no reliable evidence of eyewitnesses running counter to the evidence of the medical witness and obviously there is a clear prima facie case against the petitioner.' From these two proceedings it would be impossible to discover why the petitioner is being prosecuted. But further light...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.K.R.S.L. Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ416
1. The question referred to us is in the following terms:When a man has profits earned more than three years before the year of assessment and also profits earned within that period to his credit in a trade carried on by him outside British India, is there any presumption that a remittance made to him in British India for a sum which might fall in either set of profits is made from the earlier profits and not from the later.2. Under Section 4(2) of the Act profits and gains of a business accruing or arising without British India to a person resident in British India shall, if they are received in or brought into British India, be deemed to have accrued or arisen in British India and to be profits and gains of the year in which they are so received or brought, notwithstanding the fact that they did not so accrue or arise in that year, provided that they are so received or brought in within three years of the end of the year in which they accrued or arose. That appears to us to be a clea...
Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Iswaram Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ903
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the District Munsif of Ambasumudram in C.M.P. No. 253 of 1925 allowing a claim in S. C. S. No. 505 of 1919 on the file of the Tinnevelly Sub Court. A preliminary point has been taken that this Court cannot interfere by way of revision. I have already discussed the authorities on this question in Veerasami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali (1925) 50 MLJ 102. I think the rule is that this Court will not do anything like going into the merits when an appeal is available to the party, but if the lower court whose order is impugned has entirely misconceived the question before it or committed such obvious irregularity, there is no reason why this Court should not interfere. In the very short order written by the learned District Munsif in tills case he finds that the claimant's prima facie title is proved, and evidently he has not addressed his mind at all to the question of possession which is the question to be decided in this conne...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. K. R. S. L. L. Firm, Sivaganga Circl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad772
1. The question referred to us is in the following terms:When a man has profits earned more than three years before the year of assessment and also profits earned within that period to his credit in a trade carried on by him outside British India, is there any presumption, that a remittance made to him in British India of a sum which might fall in either set of profits is made from the earlier profits and not from the later.2. Under Section 4 (2) of the Act profits and gains of a business accruing or arising without British India to a person resident in British India shall, if they are received in or brought into British India, be deemed to have accrued or arisen in British India and to be profits and gains of the year in which they are so received or brought, notwithstanding the fact that they did not so accrue or arise in that year provided that they are so received or brought in within three years of the end of the year in which they accrued or arose. That appears to us to be a clea...
Vengubai Ammal Vs. V. R. Ramaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad964
1. The facts in this suit are that the plaintiff's father got a simple mortgage for Rs. 900 on a house and other properties from the guardian of defendants 1 and 2 on 9th Septmber 1911. Ex. A is the mortgage-deed. The period of the mortgage was three years and interest was to be charged at 9 per cent per annum. Defendant 4 purchased some of the properties. He is the contesting respondent. Plaintiff-appellant sued on the mortgage and the question for decision was: What amount of interest has accrued on the mortgage?2. Defendant 4 pleaded that at the time of the mortgage the mortgagee was let into possession of the house under a lease on the footing that the estimated rent of the house Rs. 5-6-0 should be set off month by month against the interest, Rule 6 12-0 due monthly, on the mortgage. A document, Ex. I, setting forth such an arrangement was sought to be filed, but both the lower Courts held it inadmissible for want of registration. I agree with them that Ex. I, read, as it must be,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »