Chennai Court September 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.
Lenka Polipillai Vs. Karim Ammanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad144
Mackay, J.1. This is a petition in which it is sought to revise an order made by the District Munsif of Chodavaram declining to set aside an award passed by arbitrators unanimously. It was decided in Ayyasami Mudaliar v. Appandai Nayanar [1919] 38 M.L.J. 145 following the United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association v. Houston & Co. [1896] 1 Q.B. 567. that an award to be enforceable in law must be the award of all the arbitrators without difference. Here, however, there is this distinction, that the petition of reference itself clearly states:We shall accept as final the award given by the majority of the panchayatdars.2. The award is signed by a majority of three out of five. The District Munsif has found as facts that all the arbitrators were present at the deliberations, that two dissented from the decision of the majority and that they were not present when the award was actually written. He rightly concluded that the last fact did not vitiate the proceedings. There is not...
Abrupammal Vs. Thoyammal (Deceased) by His Representative C. Meenambal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.122
C.V. Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. This is an application for the execution of the decree against the respondent who is not the legal representative of the deceased defendant under the Hindu Law. A decree was obtained by the plaintiff against the deceased defendant which made the amount payable a charge upon certain immoveable property. The decree was passed in April, 1925. The defendant surrendered her estate to her husband's reversioners on the 8th of December, 1925, and the reversioners sold the property to the respondent on the 12th January, 1926. The widow died on the 8th of June, 1926. The respondent is sought to be brought on record as her legal representative. As it is admitted that she is not the legal representative under the Hindu Law, the case has to be brought under Section 2, Clause (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 47. Section 2, Clause (11), defines 'legal representative' as 'a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes a...
In Re: Ramalinga Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.672; (1929)56MLJ600
ORDERReilly, J.1. I do not agree with the Additional District Magistrate that the provisions of Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are inapplicable to cases to which Section 228 applies. Under Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused had the right to re-call prosecution witnesses after the alteration of the charge even if that alteration could not affect his defence, as the Magistrate supposes, and the Magistrate had no discretion in the matter. The witnesses whom the accused wishes to re-call will be re-called....
In Re: Para Subba Naidu and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ600a
ORDERJackson, J.1. It must be held that a village Court executing under Section 48 of Act I of 1889, a decree by way of distraint is a village Court as defined in the Act, and the village munsif if he himself distrains is still acting as Judge of that Court. Therefore, sanction for his prosecution is necessary under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petition is therefore allowed as regards accused No. 2....
(Chavadi) Koothanainar Pillai Vs. Madappa Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad49; 113Ind.Cas.60
Devadoss, J.1. In these petitions, the question is, whether the Revenue Divisional Officer of Koilpatti was justified in adding a note to his judgment more than two months after it was delivered. The Divisional Officer delivered his judgment on 23rd November 1925 allowing commutation subject to findings on certain issues and added.The rent due on the Fasli from which it is due will be decided later on.2. It is urged that without any further enquiry the Divisional Officer added a note that commutation will take effect from Fasli 1333, that is the year in which the suits were filed. Seeing that in the judgment he reserved the question from what year the commutation was to begin, he was not justified without further enquiry and without notice to the parties to add a note to his judgment to the effect that commutation will take effect from Fasli 1333. It is unfortunate that the respondents do not appear, but the petitioner has filed an affidavit to the effect that the order was passed on 9...
V. Ramalinga Mudaliar Vs. E. Sundara Sastrigal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad526; 120Ind.Cas.874
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner has preferred a Civil Revision Petition and a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the latter of which has since been withdrawn, against the order of the District Judge of Madura dated the 14th September, 1928, upon a petition filed by five worshippers of the Sri Meenakshi Sunderaswarar temple at Madura under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and Clauses 46 and 47 of the scheme framed for that institution. The substance of the prayer of these worshippers was to restrain the respondent, who is the trustee of the Devasthanam, from holding the Navarathri festival on the 14th September and eight succeeding days, The application was presented on the very 14th September itself, and must in the ordinary course have been heard ex parte, but it appears that a Pleader represented the trustee and that on the same date the matter was, therefore, argued on both sides, The learned District Judge found that he had jurisdiction to interfere in the matter and passed an order...
Lenka Polipillai, Minor, by Karri Dalemma Vs. Karri Ammanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.367
Mackay, J.1. This is a petition in which it is sought to revise an order made by the District Munsif of Chodavaram declining to set aside an award passed by arbitrators. The first point taken is that the award is invalid as it was not made by the arbitrators unanimously. It was decided in Ayyasawmi Mudaliar v. Appandai Nynan 54 Ind. Cas. 912 : 38 M.L.J. 145 following the United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association v. Houston & Co. (1893) 1 Q.B. 507 : 65 L.J.Q.B. 484, that an award to be enforceable in law must be the award of all the arbitrators without difference. Here, however, there is this distinction, that the petition of reference itself clearly states 'we shall accept as final the award given by the majority of the Panchayatdars'. The award is signed by a majority of three out of five. The District Munsif has found as facts that all the arbitrators were present at the deliberations, that two dissented from the decision of the majority and that they were not present whe...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karuppiah Kangani Alias Kumaravelu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad35; (1928)55MLJ844
Mackay, J.1. These are three references made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), at the instance of an assessee, Karuppiah Kangani alias Kumaravelu Ambalam.2. The assessee is a native of the village of Kakkattiruppupudur in the District of Ramnad. He migrated to Ceylon many years ago and prospered. He now owns tea estates and factories in that Island and carries on money-lending and other forms of business in the Colony. He owns a house on one of the estates and there his first wife and her children live.3. He has a second house in his native village in which his second wife and his children by her live. He has land in the vicinity and carries on money-lending in that village on a limited scale; and he has a local agent to conduct his affairs. Up to the year 1924-1925, he frequently visited Kakkattiruppupudur, his last visit at that period being from August to October, 1924. His next visit was in October, 1927, and it would appear t...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.P. Pethaperumal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad34; (1928)55MLJ850
Beasley, J.1. The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, is 'whether the sum of 13,301 dollars is allowable in this case as a deduction under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act as interest paid in the year Krodhana.' under Section 10 profits and gains of a business carried on by an assessee are to be computed after making certain allowances and Sub-clause (iii) allows the deductions of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business. The assessee is a Nattukkottai Chetty residing in the Ramnad District and has rubber gardens and a money-lending business at Taiping in the Federated Malay States. In the year Krodhana (1925-1926) he received a sum of Rs. 55,423 in British India from his business at Taiping and in the course of the assessment proceedings of 1926-1927 the question arose whether this sum, or any part of it, represented profit of the Taiping business liable to tax under Section 4(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. ...
Vanavamalai Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal Vs. MA. Sami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad525
Odgers, J.1. These were suits brought originally for rent according to a lease-agreement as it is called in the plaint in S. A. 840 of 1925. This was amended by adding a paragraph for damages for use and occupation of certain land. The question of title in the plaintiff was expressly excluded and the plaintiff's agent goes to the trouble of recording certain remarks on the plaint whereby the plaintiff reserves his remedy in ejectment for another occasion. The preliminary objection is taken that all these three suits are of a small cause nature. Their value. is admittedly under Rs. 500. The defendants, after the plaints had been filed on the Small Cause Side of the District Munsif's Court of Palamcottah, raised a. question of title by their defence and claimed to be permanent kudivaramdars. of the property in question. The issues were first settled on 15th September 1922 and the first of them was 'is the defendant entitled to the permanent right of occupancy claimed.' That was clearly a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »