Chennai Court July 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.
E.V. Ram and Co. Vs. John Bhatt and Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad873; 108Ind.Cas.644
Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. These appeals relate to several contracts entered into by the plaintiffs' firm with the defendants' firm in London, and it will be simpler to deal with each of these separately.2. The first dispute is with reference to a contract for 150 tons of steel bars. It is the plaintiffs' case that the contract was concluded with the defendants at the rate of 29-10-0 a ton but the defendants' contention is that the contract was never completed, and that is the finding of the learned trial Judge. We have been taken through the correspondence on the point consisting mainly of cablegrams in Code and beginning in December 1919 and going on till March 1920. The most important telegrams are Exs. A (4) to A (12). In Ex. A (4) the plaintiffs offered a rate of 27-10-0, but in reply the defendants quoted a price of 28-10-0. Then the defendants wired out that they could not send 150 tons but that they could send sections of not less than 5 tons, each size, ' subject to reply received...
Shanmuga Kone and ors. Vs. T.S. Ramalingam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad952; 108Ind.Cas.786
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The only point that has been argued in this case on behalf of the appellants, though several points have been raised in the case, is one with regard to the plea of limitation. The lower appellate Court has found against the defendants (appellants) on that plea and granted a decree.2. The facts necessary to understand the question under discussion may be briefly set out. There was a chit fund conducted by a registered company of which there were two secretaries, one chief and another an assistant. Defendants 1 and 2 who held chits in this fund bid for and obtained the prize on 5th April 1902, and as security for payment of the remaining chits to be paid by them gave an hypothecation bond dated 28th June 1902. There have been disputes as to how many chits were continued to be paid thereafter by the mortgagors, but some time afterwards, though the point of time has not been definitely ascertained, the company ceased to work and thereupon the Chief Secretary purpor...
V. V. M. K. R. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. Doraiswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1091
1. This appeal arises out of an application made by a petitioning creditor in I. P. 19 of 1910 to set aside the sale of the insolvent's properties held by the official receiver. One Solamalai Asari was adjudged an insolvent on 12th July 1911 and on 11th November 1912 nine items of his property were sold to one Virabhadra Konan. At the time of the sale the Court had not passed an order vesting the properties in the official receiver. Accordingly the appellant put in an application M. P. 222 of 1919 to declare the sale already held invalid and to order the official receiver to re-sell the properties after the Court had passed the vesting order. The learned District Munsif agreeing with the contention of the appellant declared that the sale was void and passed an order vesting the properties in the official receiver and directed him to sell the properties again. In appeal it was held that the application of the petitioning creditor was barred by limitation. But the High Court set aside th...
(Adivi) Krishnayya Vs. (Thummalapally) Sriramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad142
1. Two arguments have been urged before us (1) that the execution petition dated 3rd September 1920 is not a proper execution petition as it was not stamped at the time of presentation and, therefore, the petition dated 10th August 1923 is barred by limitation; (2) that the assignment application under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C., is bad as it has not been registered. Both these arguments must be overruled. As regards the first, it has not been shown that, if an execution application is not stamped, it becomes necessarily invalid. Further in this case action was taken on this application and properties were attached but no objection seems to have been taken by the appellant at that time. We hold, therefore, that the execution petition dated 10th August 1923 was not barred by limitation.2. There is no substance in the second argument also. There was a personal decree all along against defendant 1 (the present appellant). It is conceded that the assignment of personal decree does not r...
The Municipal Council Vs. M.C. Krishnan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ147
Curgenven, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition presented by the Cuddalore Municipal Council against the judgment of the District Munsif of Chidambaram in S.C. S. No. 333 of 1925 on his file. The plaintiff in that suit, Mr. M. C. Krishnan Nambiar, is a District Munsif, and during the first half of the year- 1923-1924 he successively resided and held appointments for more than sixty days within two Municipalities--those of Cuddalore and Chidambaram. Although he had thus rendered himself liable to pay profession tax to the Cuddalore Municipality, no demand was made upon him until several months after he had left, and after a similar demand had been made upon him in Chidambaram. Eventually he paid the tax demanded of him by the latter Municipality, and later again the Cuddalore Municipality compelled him to satisfy its own demand. He thus paid profession tax twice over. In the suit in which he made both Municipalities defendants, the lower Court has decreed the refund to him by the Cudd...
Bhadri Narayana Vs. Nagaldinne Srinivasa Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ66
ORDER1. No reference lies in this case. The insolvency proceeding in which this reference has been made is subject to appeal. Under Order 46, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, a reference can be made only in suits or appeals In which the decrees are not subject to an appeal. The reference being not according to law, the papers are returned....
Municipal Council Vs. M. C. Krishna Nambiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad968
Curgenven, J.1. This is a civil revision petition presented by the Cuddalore Municipal Council against the judgment of the District Munsif of Chidambaram in S. C. S. No. 333 of 1925 on his file. The plaintiff in that suit, Mr. M. C. Krishna Nambiar, is a District Munsif, and during the first half-year of the year 1923-24 he successively resided and held appointments for more than sixty days within two municipalities, those of Cuddalore and Chidambaram. Although he had thus rendered himself liable to pay profession tax to the Cuddalore Municipality no demand was made upon him until several months after he had left, and after a similar demand had been made upon him in Chidambaram. Eventually he paid the tax demanded of him by the latter municipality, and later again the Cuddalore Municipality compelled him to satisfy its own demand. He thus paid profession tax twice over. In the suit, in which he made both municipalities defendants, the lower Court has decreed the refund to him by the Cu...
Velusami Naicken Vs. Dhanakoti Balasubramania Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad398
1. This appeal arises out of an application by the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 20 of 1919, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, to set aside the sale in execution of the decree in that suit, under O.21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. Various irregularities alleged to vitiate the sale have been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the appellants, but we are satisfied that there is no substance in any one of them.2. It was stated that the sale proclamation was settled in the absence of the judgment-debtor. The facts show that the notice for the settlement of the sale proclamation was served on the appellant and in it was stated that the sale proclamation would be settled on 25th October 1924. On that day, he did not go before the Court. The proclamation as a matter of fact was not settled on that day but the consideration of the question was adjourned to 6th November 1924. It was again adjourned to 19th January 1925. If the sale proclamation was settled in the absence of ...
The Municipal Council Vs. M.C. Krishna Nambiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.147
1. This is a civil revision petition presented by the Cuddalore Municipal Council against the judginent of the District Munsif of Chidambaram in Section O.S. No. 330 of 1925 on his file. The plaintiff in that suit, Mr. M.C. Krishna Nambiar, is a District Munsif, and during the first half of the year 1923-24 he successively resided and held appointments for more than 60 days within two Municipalities--those of Cuddalore and Chidambaram. Although he had thus tendered himself liable to pay profession tax to the Cuddalore Municipality, no demand was made upon him until several months after he had left, and after a similar demand had been made upon him in Chidambaram. Eventually he paid the tax demanded of him by the latter Municipality, and later again the Cuddalore Municipality compelled him to satisfy its own demand. He thus paid profession tax twice over. In the suit, in which he made both Municipalities defendants, the lower Court has decreed the refund to him by the Cuddalore Municipa...
In Re: Ibraya Rowthan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ762
ORDERWallace, J.1. The order of the lower court directing that petitioner should, in default of giving security, suffer simple imprisonment for one year, cannot be upheld on two grounds : (1) Section 123 contemplates that the accused shall be separately brought up for sentence if security is not furnished, that the Court should in its judgment fix a date for the furnishing of security, without any order for alternative imprisonment, and then if, by that date, accused has not furnished the security, he is to appear and receive sentence under Section 123; (2) it was wrong to fix a period of one year, since accused is entitled to be released from custody the moment he furnishes the security; the sentence ought to run 'for one year or until such date within that year as the required security be furnished.' As security appears to have been furnished in this case, no further action is called for. I do not, as at present advised, subscribe to the contention that a summary Court has no power t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »