Chennai Court January 1929 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.
Muthu Chettiar and anr. Vs. Govindas Waminaidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.823
1. The petitioners who are the trustees of a temple filed a suit for certain reliefs in the District Munsif's Court, Chidambaram. Objection was taken that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif and evidence and arguments on the point were heard. Before the District Munsif arrived at a decision, the petitioners applied for leave to withdraw a portion of their claim and for a consequent amendment of the plaint in order to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif. The petition purported to be filed under Section 151 and Order XVII of the Civil Procedure Code. Order XVII is clearly inapplicable and must have been inserted by mistake, but from a note in the District Munsif's own hand, it would appear that it was regarded as a petition under Order XXIII, Rule 1. The District Munsif rejected the petition on the ground that it was filed too late. Order XXIII, Rule 1 runs:At any time after the institution of a suit the plaintiff may,...
Jethaji Peraji Firm by Agent Maggaji Vs. Tirupuramallu Krishnayya (Dea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ116
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Several connected appeals and revision petitions have been argued before us, but, in my opinion, C.M.A. Nos. 310, 311 and 312 of 1925 really raise the question of substance, which presents itself for decision. If we decide these appeals in favour of the appellants there, our decision in them governs the other cases and the contentions raised in the latter by the respondents seem beside the point. Shortly stated, the question we have to decide relates to the construction and effect of Sections 43, 37 and 27 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1920.2. The facts are undisputed and 1 shall briefly state them. Three brothers were adjudicated insolvents, first on their own petitions and subsequently on petitions filed by certain creditors. The orders of adjudication were passed on the debtors' petitions by the Official Receiver on the 25th of November, 1921 and he fixed 18 months as the period within which the debtors were to apply for their discharge. The same debtors...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Central Urban Bank (Ltd.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad387
1. This is a case stated for our opinion by the Commissioner of Income-tax, at the request of the Madras Central Urban Bank, Ltd. This is a Society registered under Act 2 of 1912, and the question arises from its assessment on interest derived by it from investments in Government securities. The Society contends that it is exempted from paying tax in respect of these investments by a notification in the Finance Department 'issued under Section 60, Income-tax Act,. 1922 which corresponds to Section 28, Co-Operative Societies Act, enabling the Governor-General-in-Council to remit income-tax payable in respect of the profits of the society. The question is whether this interest is part of the profits of the society. The notification Ex. A exemptsthe profits of any Co-operative Society...registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 1912, or the dividends or other payments received by the members of any such Society on account of profits.2. The notification has been interpreted to includ...
Firm Jethaji Peraji Vs. Krishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad278; 122Ind.Cas.351
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Several connected appeals and revision petitions have been argued before up, but, in my opinion, C. M. A, Nos. 310, 311 and 312 of 1925 really raise the question of substance which presents itself for decision. If we decide these appeals in favour of the appellants there, our decision in them governs the other cases and the contentions raised in the latter by the respondents seem beside the point. Shortly stated, the question we have to decide relates to the construction and effect of Sections 43,37 and 27 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1920.2. The facts are undisputed and I shall briefly state them. Three brothers were adjudicated insolvents, first on their own petitions and subsequently on petitions filed by certain creditors. The orders of adjudication were passed on the debtors' petitions by the Official Receiver on the 25th of November, 1921, and he fixed 18 months, as the period within which the debtors were to apply for their discharge. The same debto...
In Re: Panchanatham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.157; (1929)56MLJ628
1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his daughter, with whom he is alleged to have been on bad terms. They were living together in the French portion of a village which is partly in French and partly in British territory. The appellant, it is said, went away with his daughter on 15th or 16th July, 1926, and returned the next day alone. On 18th P.W. 1 complained to the French police that the appellant had murdered his daughter and at about the same time the appellant reported her disappearance. The appellant was arrested and at once made a confession to a police officer, who has since been dismissed for torturing prisoners in order to extract confessions from them. After this the appellant was placed before the Juge d' Instruction, to whom he made a statement (Ex. J-l) that his daughter was tired of life and that he assisted her to commit suicide. Though it was by then obvious that the murder...if it was a murder...was committed in British territories, a French Sub-Inspe...
Meenakshisundaram Pillai Vs. Chokkalinga Pathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad506; (1929)56MLJ624
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the order of the Lower Court in a matter in execution. That Court has directed that in a sale proclamation certain properties be sold in certain lots and has fixed the market value of such lots at certain figures and also the upset prices for each lot. The appellant objects that the lots are too large and the figures of market value too small and appeals on these grounds.2. The preliminary objection is taken by the respondent that no appeal lies. The order of the Lower Court is admittedly passed under Order 21, Rule 66 (2) (e), Civil Procedure Code, which directs the Court to set out in the sale proclamation as fairly and accurately as possible such information as it considers material for the purchasers to know. Orders under Rule 66 are not appealable as such, and an appeal will lie only if the order can be brought within Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, as an order deciding a question between the parties to the suit 'relating ...
(Malla) Latchayya and ors. Vs. Trustee of Vasudevaswami, Rajah of Mand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad504
1. The Zamindar of Mandasa is the plaintiff and the defendants are his tenants of the Pidi Mandasa Village. In 1923 the zamindar filed suits against his tenants in the civil and revenue Courts for rent in respect of Faslis 1329 to 1331. During the pendency of these suits the agreement, Ex. A, was executed and in pursuance of it the plaintiff withdrew those suits and they were dismissed. Generally stated Ex. A provided, amongst other things, that the zamindar should withdraw his suits, that accounts of arrears from Fasli 1325 should be looked into, within 15 days from the date of the agreement and within a further period of 15 days the ryots should pay the balances that may be found due according to the D.C.B. and other accounts and duplicate receipts. It also provided that if the ryots failed to make the payments according to the terms of the agreement and the accounts of the zamindar he may file suits for arrears found due from Fasli 1325 and for costs. The agreement ended with the st...
(Yethinahalli) Chenna Basappa and ors. Vs. Sree Sankara Bharati Swami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad493
1. This is a suit for damages by the Jagatguru of the Kudli Sringeri Mutt. In his plaint he recites that he was making a tour among his disciples and as Jagatguru of the Kudli Sringeri Mutt was entitled to go in procession in an Addapallaki with various other religious honours. He arrived at the village of Haravi near Holalu on 9th October 1920, and on the following day he was told by the police that he must not attempt to go in procession in the Adda. Pallaki because of a probable breach of the peace. Accordingly on 11th October he went in procession in an ordinary pallaki, Mena, to which was attached an emblem called 'Panchakalasam.' The defendants obstructed his passage and told him that he could not proceed with this Panchakalasam attached to the Mena, but that they had no objection to his going in an ordinary Mena without this emblem. There was a scuffle between the parties and some of the plaintiff's men were beaten but the plaintiff himself was not beaten or in any way-hurt. A c...
Yettinahalli Chenna Basappa and ors. Vs. His Holiness Jagadguru Sree S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.149
1. This is a suit for damages by the Jagatguru of the Kudli Sringeri Mutt. In his plaint he recites that he was making a tour among his disciples and as Jagatguru of the Kudli Sringeri mutt was entitled to go in procession in an Addapallaki with various other religious honours. He arrived at the village of Haravi near Holalu on the 9th of October, 1920, and on the following day he was told by the Police that he must not attempt to go in procession in the Addapallaki because of a probable breach of the peace. Accordingly on the 11th of October he went in procession in an ordinary Pallaki, Mena, to which was attached an emblem called 'Panchakalasam.' The defendants obstructed his passage and told him that he could not proceed with this Panchakalasam attached to the Mena, but that they had no objection to his going in an ordinary Mena without this emblem. There was a scuffle between the parties and some of the plaintiff's men were beaten but the plaintiff himself, was not beaten or in any...
Malla Latchayya and ors. Vs. Trustee of Sri Sri Sri Vasudevaswami Varu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.718
1. The zemindar of Mandasa is the plaintiff and the defendants are his tenants of the Pidi Mandasa village. In 1923 the zemindar filed suits against his tenants in the Civil and Revenue Courts for rent in respect of Faslis 1329 to 1331. During the pendency of these suits, the agreement, Ex. A, was executed and in pursuance of it the plaintiff withdrew those suits and they were dismissed. Generally stated Ex. A provided, amongst other things, that the zemindar should withdraw his suits, that accounts of arrears from fasli 1325 should be looked into within 15 days from the date of the agreement and within a further period of 15 days the ryots should pay the balances that may be found due according to the D.C.B and other accounts and duplicate receipts. It also provided that if the ryots failed to make the payments according to the terms of the agreement and the accounts of the zemindar he may file suits for arrears found due from fasli 1325 and for costs. The agreement ended with the sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »