Chennai Court November 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.
Mukala Venkatanandam and ors. Vs. Immidisetty Dhanaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad689
1. These appeals arise out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sued to enforce their right in a partnership entered into for the purpose of working certain Government forests in the years 1919-20, 1920-21 and 1921-22. Appeal 17 of 1925 has been argued solely on the question as to whether the plaintiffs were partners in the firm for the contract of 1921-22, the appellant's case being that he was a partner in that firm and not the plaintiffs. There is one document Ex. K in this case which is strong evidence in support of the plaintiff's case that they were partners. There is an entry at p. 29 of that book in which one of the partners, N. Venkataratnam, has noted that in the auction sale of the forest contracts the contract for 1921-22 was bought for the firm. That firm had been in existence for two years and the plaintiffs but not defendant 8 were partners therein. It is contended that no value should be attached to this document, Ex. K, because the particular portion recited above was not...
Nukala Venkatanandam and ors. Vs. Immidisetty Dhanaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.298
1. These appeals arise out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sued to enforce their right in a partnership entered into for the purpose of working certain Government forests in the years 1919-20, 1920-22.2. Appeal No. 17 of 1925 has been argued solely on the question as to whether the plaintiffs were partners in the firm for the contract of 1921-22, the appellant's case being that he was a partner in that firm and not the plaintiffs. There is one document Ex. K in this case which is strong evidence in support of the plaintiffs' case, that they were partners. There is an entry at page 29 of that book in which one of the partners, N. Venkataratnam has noted that in the auction-sale of the forest contracts the contract for 1921-22 was bought for the firm. That firm had been in existence for two years and the plaintiffs but not the 7th defendant were partners therein. It is contended that no value should be attached to this document, Ex. K, because the particular portion recited above was n...
A.K. Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar Vs. Anraj Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad274
Ramesam, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed against an order of the Registrar of Presidency Small Cause Court in execution of Suit No. 9799 of 1926. The decree-holder applied for recovery of the decree amount from a debtor of the judgment-debtor referred to as the garnishee in the order of the lower Court. The garnishee appeared by vakil on the day fixed and did not state his pleas that day, but asked for time to state his pleas. The Registrar's earlier narration of the facts is not inconsistent with the petitioner's present allegation that he asked for. time. The petitioner files an affidavit that he asked for time. This is not contradicted, the respondents not caring to appear before me. It seems to me that the allegation must be true and I accept it. The order of the Registrar on the record is 'adjourned to 1st March 1927.' If the garnishee admitted the amount claimed and had no dispute and did not ask for time, there is no need for the adjournment. By consent the matter w...
A.K. Sundaravadivelu Mudaliar Vs. Anray Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.847
ORDERRamesam, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed against an order of the Registrar of the Presidency Small Cause Court in execution of Suit No. 9799 of 1926. The decree-holder applied for recovery of the decree amount from a debtor of the judgment-debtor referred to as the garnishee in the order of the lower Court. The garnishee appeared by Vakil on the day fixed and did not state his pleas that day, but asked for time to state his pleas. The Registrar's earlier narration of the facts is not inconsistent with the petitioner's present allegation that he asked for time. The petitioner files an affidavit that he asked for the time. This is not contradicted--the respondent not caring to appear before me. It seems to me that the allegation must be true and I accept it. The order of the Registrar on the record is adjourned to 1st March, 1927.2. If the garnishee admitted the amount claimed and had no dispute and did not ask for time there is no need for the adjournment. By consent t...
The United India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. and the Indian Companies Act, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ79
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application for review of taxation. The original application was by a notice of motion under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act for directing the United India Life Assurance Company, Limited, to do certain things. The application is also entitled 'In the matter of the United India Life Assurance Company, Limited' as required by the rules. But this is not an application under any of the sections of the Indian Companies Act. It is purely an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Judge dismissed the application with 'costs,' but the order as drawn up is 'taxed costs.'2. The contention raised by the applicant is that the order is wrongly drawn up, inasmuch as the learned Judge did not allow 'taxed costs.' The other contention is that, as the party did not appear by attorney but only by counsel, he is not entitled to bring in a bill for each item of work done and that all that the Court could do, even if the order as drawn...
Kasia Pillai Alias Subramania Pillai, Minor by His Guardian and Mother ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.287; (1929)56MLJ311
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are owners of adjoining lands. The plaintiff's lands lie on the north and the 1st defendant's lands which are on a higher level lie on the south. Along the boundary between their respective lands the 1st defendant put up a bund three feet high and in two particular places in this bund he cut openings for allowing the surplus water collecting on his lands to flow into the plaintiff's lands and thence? into the Palayam channel, which lies to the north of the plaintiff's lands. It is the common case of both parties that the plaintiff's land was part of the Palayam channel until it was granted to the plaintiff in about 1905 by the Government. It has been found by the Courts below that the bund stands on the 1st defendant's lands and was put up by him, though the plaintiff alleged that it belonged jointly to the 1st defendant and himself. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant is not ent...
Kasia Pillai Vs. Ganesamuthukumarasamia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad337
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. The plaintiff and defendant L are owners of adjoining lands. The plaintiff's lands lie on the north and defendant 1's lands which are on a higher level lie on the south. Along the boundary between their respective lands defendant 1 put up a bund three feet high and in two particular places in this bund ho cut openings for allowing the surplus water collecting on his lands to flow into the plaintiff's lands and thence into the Palayam channel, which lies to the north of the plaintiff's lands. It is the common case of both parties that the plaintiff's land was part of the Palayam channel until it was granted to the plaintiff in about 1905 by the Government. It has been found by the Courts below that the bund stands on defendant 1's lands and was put up by him, though the plaintiff alleged that it belonged jointly to defendant 1 and himself. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant 1 is not entitled to drain off the surplus waters of hi...
In Re: the United India Life Assurance Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.301
Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application for review of taxation. The original application was by a notice of motion under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act for directing the United India Life Assurance Company, Limited, to do certain things. The application is also entitled 'In the matter of the United India Life Assurance Company, Limited,' as required by the rules. But this is not an application under any of the sections of the Indian Companies Act. It is purely an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Judge dismissed the application with 'costs,' but the order as drawn up is 'taxed costs'.2. The contention raised by the applicant is that the order is wrongly drawn up, inasmuch as the old Judge did not allow 'taxed costs'. The other contention is that, as the party did not appear by Attorney but only by Counsel, he is not entitled to bring in the bill for each item of work done and that all that the Court could do, even if the ord...
In Re: K. Audisesha Naidu, an Insolvent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.70; (1929)56MLJ95
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application by the Nedungadi Bank, Ltd., for an order directing the Official Assignee to deliver possession of five motor cars specified in the application and to pay Rs. 44 which is alleged to be the amount realised by the sale of one motor car which was sold by the Official Assignee.2. The affidavit in support of the application sets out that the insolvent Audisesha Naidu was the proprietor of the City Taxi Company, that he obtained an overdraft from the bank on the terms set out in a deed, dated the 1st of June, 1926, by which it was inter alia provided that the bank should allow accommodation to the insolvent to the extent of Rs. 5,000 on the security of six motor cars described in the schedule to the registered deed, that the bank became the mortgagee of the six cars to the extent of the advances made, that the deed also provides that the bank would be entitled to take possession of the cars whenever desired by it, that one Sambamurthi claiming ...
K.G. Ethirajulu Chetty Vs. A.P. Rajagopalachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ115
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application for the appointment of a Receiver by the plaintiff who has filed the suit on a registered deed of mortgage, dated the 15th of February, 1926 for Rs. 23,238-3-5 repayable with interest at 12 per cent. per annum alleged to have been created by the 1st defendant and his deceased brother for the recovery of Rs. 31,190-8-3 with costs and further interest.2. The affidavit in support of the application states that the properties yield a rent of Rs. 145 a month, while the monthly interest accruing due is Rs. 300, that the defendants are not paying the interest which they are bound to pay under the deed of mortgage but are enjoying the rents of the properties themselves, that the value of the properties has considerably diminished and it is not possible to recover the amount by a sale of the properties, that a very large sum is due for interest alone-and that it is necessary that a Receiver should be appointed for the purpose of receiving the rent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »