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.
Dist. Official Receiver Vs. S.V. Nallaperumal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad471
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is by the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly against the order of the District Judge in the matter of a motion of the Official Receiver under Section 54, Pro Ins. Act. The Official Receiver by a motion in I P No. 16 of 1921 sought to have declared fraudulent and void against him under Section 54 three mortgages by the insolvents in favour of the three respondents to this appeal. The District Judge dismissed the petition and the Official Receiver appeals.2. The two insolvents, examined as P.Ws. 1 and 3, were from 1916 to 1920 carrying on an extensive trade, both local and export, in leather and hides in Tuticorin. On 20th April 1921, one of their creditors, whose clerk is examined here as P W. 4 put into the District Court I. P. No. 16 of 1921 praying that the insolvents may be declared insolvent. That petition was resisted by the insolvents, but after inquiry they were declared insolvent on 17th December 1921.3. The three documents of mortgage, attacked by the Of...
In Re: Sankaram Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad496; 113Ind.Cas.455
ORDERReilly, J.1. The Assistant Sessions Judge found that there was an occurrence in which P.W. No. 7 and the other men against whom the petitioner reported took part, but that the occurrence was. exaggerated by the petitioner into a case of dacoity. The petitioner reported to the Village Magistrate that P.W. No. 7 and the other men removed the women's. jewels, not stating which particular men. removed them. The Assistant Sessions Judge appears to be of opinion that it is enough to consider the question whether P.W. No. 7 removed the jewels and accepts P.W. No. 7's evidence that he did not do so. But the petitioner's charge would have been substantially true if any of the other men named by: him had taken the jewels, and none of them has been examined in this case. The petitioner produced evidence to show that two of those men removed jewels from the women but Sessions Judge on appeal. has not considered that evidence. The charge against the petitioner on which. he has been convicted i...
A.V. Narayanaswami Naicker Vs. Sakharam Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad2; 113Ind.Cas.660; (1928)55MLJ838
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. Under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, this case, having been in the list of default cases for three weeks, stood dismissed. The proviso to that rule allows the plaintiff within 30 days of the date of dismissal to apply by Master's summons to have the suit restored and thereupon the Master has a discretion to restore it or not as he thinks fit. That proviso was not availed of by the plaintiff in this case and he took no steps within 30 days. The Master held that in those circumstances he had no discretion to allow the case to be restored after those 30 days. It is pointed out that by Order 1, Rule 7, which is in effect a reproduction of that which appears as Order 64, Rule 7 of the Rules of the Supreme Court in England, and which repeats similar rules which had been in force for many years, there is a general discretion given to revive a suit, because it says in terms that an enlargement may be ordered althou...
Nemichand Sowcar Vs. Kesarimull Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad31; (1929)56MLJ35
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application for a decree in terms of an award which is said to have been given by certain arbitrators.2. The award was brought to' Court by one of the arbitrators at the instance of the petitioner. There is a dispute as to the validity of the award. The petitioner says that the award was by five arbitrators but we find that only one has signed it and he has presented it in Court. The respondents say that the reference was only to two arbitrators of whom only one has signed the award. In any view it seems to me that the award cannot be enforced as an award because it is not signed by five arbitrators as stated by the petitioner or by two as stated by the respondents.3. Under the Indian Arbitration Act there has to be a written submission to arbitration and under the Original Side Rules it is the arbitrators that have to file the award in Court with the submission at the request of the parties.4. Order 38, Rule 7 of the Original Side Rules says that an...
Tinnevelly Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. T.A.K. Mohideen Pichai Taraganar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad209; 117Ind.Cas.712
ORDER1. These are applications for the review of the judgment in T.A.K. Mohideen Pichai Taraganar v. Tinnevelly Mills Co. Ltd. : AIR1928Mad571 delivered by Srinivasa Ayyangar and Ananthakrishna Ayyar. JJ., who have since ceased to be Judges of this High Court. The Tinnevelly Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter refer-red to as the company) which was respondent in the second appeals is petitioner and the ground on which review is applied for is that the decision of both the learned Judges is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record, i.e., in the judgments themselves within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C.2. In Chhajju Ram v. Neki A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 112, their Lordships of the Privy Council have held thatRule 1, Order 47 must be read as in itself definitive of the limits within which a review of a decree or order is permitted and that a Court hearing an application for the review of a decree has no jurisdiction to order review merely because it is of opinion that a ...
Namichand Sowcar Vs. Kesarimull Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.818
Kumara Swami Sastri, J.1. This is an application for a decree in terms of an award which is said to have been given by certain arbitrators.2. The award was brought to Court by one of the arbitrators at the instance of the petitioner. There is a dispute as to the validity of the award. The petitioner says that the award was by five arbitrators but we find that only one has signed it and he has presented it in Court. The respondents say that the reference was only to two arbitrators of whom only one has signed the award. In any view it seems to me that the award cannot be enforced as an award because it is not signed by the five arbitrators as stated by the petitioner or by two as stated by the respondents.3. Under the Indian Arbitration Act, there has to be a written submission to arbitration and under the Original Side Rules it is the arbitrators that have to file the award in Court with the submission at the request of the parties.4. Order XXXVIII, Rule 7 of the Original Side Rules sa...
In Re: Sanna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.455a
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. On the finding that all the accused joined in inflicting the injuries upon P.W. No. 1, and that grievous hurt to him was caused in furtherance of the common intention of all, the learned Sessions Judge was right in applying Section 34, Indian Penal Code and finding all guilty under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. I do not think, however, that upon this footing the conviction of the 1st accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code can be sustained, because the evidence shows that be caused only injury No. (1) which was not in itself grievous hurt was the result of the aggregate of 26 injuries, and it cannot be said, therefore, in the terms of Section 326, Indian Penal Code, that it was caused 'by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, etc.'2. Accordingly I alter the conviction of 1st accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, into one under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. It is also pointed out that, when altering his conviction under Section ...
Chebolu Jagannadham Vs. Dalapati Chendramma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad489
Mackay, J.1. This is a petition in which I am asked to revise an order made by the Agent to the Governor at Vizagapatam dismissing a petition under Rule 55, Agency Rules, requesting him to set aside a decree made by the Special Assistant Agent at Parvatipur. The suit was brought on a bond by the licensor of an arrack shop for the recovery of money to be paid out of the profits of the shop by persons whom he had taken in to work it. The trial Court held that there was a partnership and that the taking in of partners did not offend the conditions of the license. For that position it relied on Gangadhara Sah v. Swaminatha Mudali : AIR1926Mad218 . It was urged before me, that there was' a sale or subletting and that this is opposed to the terms of the license and illegal.2. It is unnecessary to go into this question, as I am of opinion that no case for revision has been made out. An appeal lay to the Agent and no appeal was laid within the period limited. Long after the expiry of that peri...
In Re: Velu Panikkan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Mad371; 117Ind.Cas.143
Curgenven, J.1. The civil miscellaneous appeal is against a remand order passed in appeal under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P C., requiring the trial Court to record a finding on issue 4, which dealt with the liability of the eastern portion of the property for the mortgage debt. When the case went back to the District Munsif the mortgagee gave up this portion of the hypotheca and contented himself with asking for the sale of the western portion, the subject of the present appellant petitioner's purchase. The civil revision petition is against the District Munsif's finding that the mortgagee was competent to take this course, with the result that the western portion becomes solely liable for the debt. The District Munsif cited the Pull Bench case Perumal Pillai v. Raman Chetti [1917] 40 Mad. 968 which lays down that when a mortgagee voluntarily releases part of the mortgage security, he can recover the whole of the debt from the remainder. I do not think that the circumstance that the app...
Rajah of Vizianagaram Vs. Perumetcha Appalaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad673
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff, the Rajah of Vizianagaram, is the appellant. He claimed rent from the defendant, for the suit land in respect of faslis 1332 to 1334 at the rate of Rs. 364-0-6 per fasli. The defendant contended that he was liable to pay only at the rate of Rs. 239-15-5 and that the settlement rent at the higher figure is not binding on him. The plaintiff replied that the defendant was precluded from raising these pleas by virtue of the decision in S.S. No. 31. of 20 which he contended would operate as res judicata between the parties. The two points for determination are : (1) whether the prior decision in S.S. 31 of 20 in favour of the higher rate claimed by the plaintiff is res judicata and (2) whether the settlement rent at the higher figure is binding on the defendant. On both these points both the lower Courts found in favour of the defendant.2. I may state at once that the finding on the second point that the settlement rent at the higher figure is not binding ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »