Chennai Court October 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.
In Re: Karuthaswami Servai Alias Athiappan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad331; (1930)58MLJ229
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The question referred to us for decision is:Is an accused person, who has been called upon to give security for good behaviour, entitled to the benefit of Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code2. The sections dealing with security for good behaviour are contained in Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. Section 110 empowers the Magistrates enumerated therein to require a person habitually addicted to the commission of offences mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his good behaviour for such period not exceeding three years as the Magistrate thinks fit.4. Section 112 provides that, where a Magistrate deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, he shall make an order in writing setting' forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties required.5....
In Re: Katagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ510
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The Maharaja of Venkatagiri, who is the petitioner, filed separate suits against his tenants for rent on the ground that they raised a second crop. The tenants defended the suits on the ground that they did not raise a second crop and that the suit was barred by limitation. The suits were tried together and the witnesses examined were treated as witnesses in all the suits. There was one judgment but separate decrees were passed. Separate appeals have been filed in the High Court. The present application is to consolidate the appeals so filed for the purpose of (1) treating the Court-fee payable as the Court-fee on the entire value of the suits, and (2) filing only one vakalat in all the suits, and the question is whether such consolidation is permissible.2. As to the inherent power of the Court to consolidate suits or appeals, there can be no question. Vengu Naidu v. The Deputy Collector of Madura Division (1916) 34 M.L.J. 279 Narayan Vithal v. Jankibai I....
In Re: Sri Sree Raja Velugotti Sri Govind Krishnayachandrulu Varu Baha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad376
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The plaintiff filed 118 suits against 118 sets of tenants for recovery of arrears of rent under Section 77, Estates Land Act. The suits were dismissed and he filed 118 appeals from these decrees. The appeals were also dismissed. He now seeks to prefer second appeals to the High Court from the decrees of the lower appellate Court and has put in this application under Section 151, Civil P.C., to consolidate them so that he may file.(1) a single memorandum of appeal.(2) a single vakalatnama, and(3) only one court-fee on the aggregate value of the 118 second appeals.2. The questions that arise are should he be allowed to consolidate the appeals and if so, how many memoranda of appeals, how many vakalatnamas and what sum as court-fees must he pay.3. The power of consolidation is an inherent power of the Court and there is no special section or rule relating to it but it must, of course, be exercised in accordance with the provisions of law.4. In the present case, the petiti...
In Re: Sri Sree Raja Velugoti Sri Govinda Krishanayachandrulu Varu Bah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.203
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The Maharajah of Venkatagiri who is the petitioner filed separate suits against his tenants for rent on the ground that they raised a second crop. The tenants defended the suits on the ground that they did not raise a second crop and that the suit was barred by limitation. The suits were tried together and the witnesses examined were treated as witnesses in all the suits. There was one judgment but separate decrees were passed. Separate appeals have been filed in the High Court. The present application is to consolidate the appeals so filed for the purpose of (1), treating the Court-fee payable as the Court-fee on the entire value of the suits and (2) filing only one vakalat in all the suits, and the question is whether such consolidation is permissible.2. As to the inherent power of the Court to consolidate suits or appeals, there can be no question [Vengu Naidu v. Deputy Collector of Madura Division 45 Ind. Cas. 468 : 34 M.L.J. 279, Narayan Vithal v. Jankibai...
(Peddibhotla) Venkata Subbayya and anr. Vs. (Bhamidipati) Venkataraman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad646
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla making the award passed by the arbitrator in O.S. No. 76 of 1923 a decree of Court. The plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of his title to the properties in the schedule together with mesne profits. There were nine defendants in the suit. Defendants 6 to 9 were alleged to be lessees of the properties holding them from the other defendants. A decree for mesne profits was also asked for in the plaint. After the issues were framed in the course of the suit, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 put in a petition asking the Court to refer the subject matter of their dispute to the decision of an arbitrator under para. 1, Son. 2, Civil P.C. Theyappointed one Suryanarayana of Bezwada as arbitrator for the purpose of enquiring into and deciding upon the allegations in the plaint and in the written statements2. and they undertook that theyshall without filing an a...
Subbayya and anr. Vs. Bhamidipati Venkataramanayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.735
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla making the award passed by the arbitrator in O.S. No. 76 of 1923 a decree of Court. The plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of his title to the properties in the schedule together with mesne profits. There were nine defendants in the suit. Defendants Nos. 6 to 9 were alleged to be lessees of the properties holding them from the other defendants. A decree for mesne profits was also asked for in the plaint. After the issues were framed in the course of the suit, the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 put in a petition asking the Court to refer the subject-matter of their dispute to the decision of an arbitrator under para. 1, Schedule II, Civil Procedure Code. They 'appointed one Suryanarayana of Bezwada as arbitrator, for the purpose of enquiring into and deciding upon the allegations in the plaint and in the written statements' and they undert...
C. Sankaranarayana Mudaliar Vs. Tangaratna Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad662; 126Ind.Cas.609
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Plaintiff's claim for partition of some items of property which he alleged to be joint family property, though allowed by the first Court was disallowed by the lower Appellate Court. He has accordingly preferred this second appeal claiming a share in those properties.2. The plaintiff and defendant No. 3 are the sons of defendant No. 1 by his wife, who died in 1834. Defendant. No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1 by his second wife, who has been made defendant No. 6 in the case after the death of defendant No. 1 during the pendency of the suit.3. The plaintiff claims a share in the properties on the ground that (a) the presumption of Hindu Law is that all properties standing in the name of any member of the joint family joint family property, and the onus of proving the same to be the self acquired and separate property of any member is upon him, (6) the properties in dispute were acquired by defendant No. 1 with the aid of the sale-proceeds of the ornaments of ...
R. Viswanatha Chetty Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad544; (1930)58MLJ189
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether one K. Subbaraya Chetty was properly adjudicated an insolvent. The appellant is a creditor of the debtor and it appears that on the 26th of January, 1929, he obtained a decree for Rs. 10,000 against him. Two days later, that is, on the 28th January, the debtor filed his own petition to be adjudged an insolvent, and he was adjudicated insolvent on the same date. In para. 12 of his petition the debtor made the following statement:The liabilities of the petitioner amount to about Rs. 55,000 but many of the debts have to be carefully enquired into and investigated and assets which the petitioner is likely to get as his half share in the properties left by his father will be about Rs. 40,000 and the same is not sufficient to discharge the liabilities.2. On the 18th February the appellant moved the Court to annul the adjudication, alleging in his affidavit in support of motion that the adjudication was without the jurisdiction of the Court ina...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Suppan Chettiar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad124; (1930)58MLJ46
Curgenven, J.1. The question which the Commissioner refers to us is:Whether where an assessee owns a number of businesses A, B, C and D, and the profits and gains of business A are insufficient to cover the full depreciation admissible under Section 10 (2) (vi) of the Act on the machinery, plant, etc., used for the purpose of that business, the excess depreciation can be set off against the profits and gains of the other businesses B, C and D?2. The assessee is an unregistered firm carrying on the business of (1) grocery and rice, (2) money-lending, (3) Soda factory, (4) rice-mill, (5) foreign liquor shops, and (6) motor service. The profits of the last-named, the motor service, for the year to which the assessment relates, amounted only to Rs. 253, whereas the firm claimed an allowance of Rs. 10,542 on account of depreciation. Under Section 10 (2) (vi) of the Act, in computing the profits or gains of a business, allowance may be made, within certain prescribed limits, in respect of de...
Pichai Konar Vs. Narasimha Rama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad471; (1930)58MLJ343
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant before me in this Second Appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit, as originally framed, for a declaration of the invalidity of a mortgage decree obtained by the first defendant in O.S. No. 53 of 1918 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. The plaint underwent three processes of amendment and, finally, the plaint, as amended, contained a prayer for subrogation inasmuch as the plaintiff on 29th March, 1919, discharged in good faith a prior mortgage in favour of one Doraisami Padayachi by Veerabhadra Padayachi in respect of the properties which the plaintiff alleged he had purchased in Court auction. At the trial of the suit before the first Court this question of the plaintiff's right to subrogation was a material question discussed. The Trial. Court decided (tide paragraph 7 of its judgment) that the plaintiff was entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the prior mortgagee and, consequently, it gave the plaintiff a decree f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »