Chennai Court October 1928 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.
Kamireddi Timmappa Vs. Devasi Harpal Trading as Ratilal Khimji of Bomb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad157; (1929)56MLJ458
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the decision of the District Judge of Bellary in an insolvency matter. The facts necessary to be set out are: In I.P. No. 9 of 1921 one Karugodu Seenappa Chetti was adjudged insolvent on 26th October, 1921. On 22nd December, 1925 a composition scheme in which all creditors named in the I.P. were to be paid at four annas in the rupee was approved by the Court and the adjudication was annulled. The scheme was based on a surety bond given by the present appellant, the effect of which will be considered later. By that date 16 out of 36 creditors named in the I.P. had proved their debts and were included in the scheme schedule. The present respondent was one of those who had not then proved his debt. The surety undertook to pay the creditors named in the scheme schedule the four-anna dividend provided by the scheme, and also to pay into Court such sums as the Court ordered to be paid to such creditors as the Court hereafter brought on to the scheme sched...
Krishnan Somayajipad Vs. Vatavatti Raman Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad36
1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for the recovery of what is described as water cess from the defendants. They have based their claim on contract and usage and on both the points the findings of the lower Courts are against them. Their learned advocate, while conceding that he is not now in a position to dispute the correctness of these findings, desires to argue his case on the footing that, under the general law, he is entitled to the relief he claims. The defendants answer that this may necessitate their raising new points and we think, on the facts of this case, the plaintiffs cannot at this stage be allowed to set up a new case. The plaintiff's advocate realizing his position, applies for permission to withdraw the suit under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. In Kamayya, v. Papayya [1917] 40 Mad. 259 Full Bench, it has been held that such permission can be granted even by an appellate Court. In Chidambara Mudali v. Kozhandavelu Mudali [1912] M.W.N. 1003 permission was granted in ...
Krishnan Somayajipad Vs. Vatavatte Raman Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.557
1. The plaintiffs have filed this Suit for the recovery of what is described as water cess from the defendants. They have based their claim on contract and usage and on both the points the findings of the lower Courts are against them. Their learned Advocate, while conceding that he is not now in a position to dispute the correctness of these findings, desires to argue his case on the footing, that under the general law he is entitled to the relief, he claims. The defendants answer that this may necessitate their raising new points and we think, on the facts of this case, the plaintiffs cannot at this stage be allowed to set up a new case. The plaintiff's Advocate, realising his position, applies for permission to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. In Balide Kamayya v. Pragda Papayya : (1917)32MLJ477 it has been held that such permission can be granted even by an Appellate Court. In Chidambara Mudali v. Kozhandavelu Mudali 17 Ind. Cas. 395 : (1912) M.W.N...
S.C. Abboy Naidu Vs. Kanniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad175; 114Ind.Cas.817
ORDERReilly, J.1. The petitioner who is the President of the Union Board of Tiruvallur, after examining under Rule 4 of the Revised Rules for the conduct of elections of Members of Taluk and Union Boards made by the Government under the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, the nomination papers for an election to a seat on the Board rejected the nomination) one Kanniappa Chettiar on the ground that it was objected that he was a leper which is a disqualification under Section 55 of the Act, but postponed the election for 45 days to give Kanniappa Chettiar an opportunity of producing a certificate of witness from the District Surgeon. He put up a notice to that effect on the notice board of the Union Office and sent copies of the notice to the Presidents of the District and Taluk Boards for information. On this Kanniappa Chettiar complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tiruvallur that the President by so doing had committed an offence of defamation punishable under Section 500, I.P.C. T...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Chandaya Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad92; 126Ind.Cas.109
Victor Murray Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. We have come to the conclusions that the result of this trial cannot stand and, as is usual in such cases where we are going to order a man to be re-tried, we abstain from saying anything that could lead to the possibility of gaps in the prosecution case being filled up in the interval. But there are two reasons which 1 am going to give for upsetting this judgment which are not open to that danger at all. The learned Judge has rejected some evidence about three objects, an umbrella, a stick and a bundle, which were said to have been pointed out by the accused as being in the well where the body of the dead man had been found. The learned Judge might according to his discretion have accepted or rejected the story that the accused stated that the things were in the well and that it was owing to that statement that they were found there. What he has done is to dismiss the whole evidence out of the case on the ground that the umbrella and the stick whic...
A. Muhamad Ellaiyas Vs. Rahima Bee, Late a Minor by Her Husband and Gu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad191; 114Ind.Cas.842; (1929)56MLJ302
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question I have to decide is, whether a Civil Revision Petition lies against the order of the Subordinate Judge holding that the plaintiff has paid on his plaint the proper Court-fee, the objection to the contrary by the defendant being overruled. The defendant complains in this petition that the order of the Lower Court regarding Court-fee is wrong, and a preliminary objection has been taken that the petition does not lie. In my opinion, the objection is well founded.2. It is hardly necessary to state that I do not base my judgment on the ground that interlocutory orders made in a suit are not liable to be revised by the High Court. As a matter of fact, in the case of various kinds of interlocutory orders the High Court exercises its powers of revision. Where in regard to the Court-fee payable, the decision of the Lower Court is unfavourable to the plaintiff, it has been held that the High Court can in revision interfere with that decision. This is the view ...
N. Subba Reddi and ors. Vs. P. Marga Sastriar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad517; 118Ind.Cas.818
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal relating to the sale of a holding under the Madras Estates Land Act for an arrear of rent in fasli 1325 (1915) 13 years ago. The plaintiff was the sub-lessee of an estate called Janakrajukuppam from 1913 to 1918 from the permanent lessee. The properties in question belonged to defendant 1's father and on 9th July 1919 the plaintiff attached and brought the lands in respect of rent due for fasli 1325 as stated and purchased them himself. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants trespassed and took possession in 1922 and therefore asks for a declaration of his right in respect of the properties and for a direction for delivery of possession. The written statement sets out that the rent auction has become void because the plaintiff 'has taken out rent sale proceedings' against the defendant's father who died in 1917. The written statement then goes on to set out in detail the reasons why the rent auction was invalid 'in every way' and also fraudulent, the m...
In Re: Vasudeva Samiar Alias Vasudeva Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad381; (1929)56MLJ369
ORDERMurray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. This case appears to me to be indistinguishable from the case of Sheikh Sardar Ali v. Sheikh Dolliluddin Ostagar (1928) 48 Cri.L.J. 150. For the sake of clearness I will set out the dates in this case. The plaint was presented on the 30th July, 1919. The Second Appeal was presented on the 15th July, 1924. The Judge who heard the Second Appeal called for a finding and in consequence of that inevitable delay gave his judgment on the 9th February, 1928. On the 24th of April, 1928, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Judge who sitting alone had decided the Second Appeal. Before that Letters Patent Appeal was presented the amended Letters Patent of 1928 had become applicable to this Presidency on the 31st of January.2. I should in any case differ from the decision in the Calcutta case cited above with great reluctance because it would lead to the result that a Second Appeal would lie in Calcutta where it would not lie...
M.L. Sivaramakrishna Aiyar Vs. Seshappa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad172; (1929)56MLJ263
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner is a Village Munsif, and he applies for the revision of an order passed by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kulitalai in P. R. No. 3 of 1927 on his file. That case was instituted by the complainant against the petitioner and two others under Sections 466 and 474, Indian Penal Code, and the question which arose was whether cognizance of the offences complained of could be taken without the sanction of the Local Government under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The subject-matter of the complaint was a record of a civil suit in which the complainant figured as a defendant and which purported to have been tried and decreed by the petitioner under the Village Courts Act (I of 1889). The complaint alleged that the whole proceeding from start to finish was fictitious, and that the entire record was a forgery. The point for decision is whether sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, is necessary before a Court can take cognizance of an all...
Ramalinga Iyar Vs. Sankaranarayana Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad192
Walsh, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif of Dharapuram in I. A. No. 338 of 1928 in O.S. No. 64 of 1928 to examine a witness, on commission. It is not denied that the witness lives beyond the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court and beyond the limits under which he is compellable to attend and give evidence in person under Order 16, Rule 19, Civil P.C. The order therefore, is one passed under Order 26, Rule 4, though the reason for passing the order is the alleged ill-health of the witness. The petitioner claims some property as having come to him from his father; the defendant claims it as having bought it from the witness in question. The latter is an aged High Court Vakil who has retired from practice. The plaintiff has summoned him as his witness to show, 1 understand, that the sale-deed was executed in the name of the defendant for plaintiff's' benefit. The witness certainly appears to be an important witness in the case. The question is whet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »