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.
The Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. T.C. Anantarama Iyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.507
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of our brother Waller, J., decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs. The suit is by the plaintiff for damages for wrongful dismissal by Sri Meenakshi Mills, Ltd., of Madura. The plaintiff is a graduate, in Arts and in Engineering, of the Madras University. He was employed in the Public Works Department for some time but lost his employment on account of retrenchment in that department and, at the time the events which are the subject of this suit took place, was out of employ. In about October 1921 a limited Company was formed, called the Sri Meenakshi Mills Limited and Messrs. Theagaraja Chetti & Co. were its Managing Agents, In October 1923 Mr. Theagaraja Chetti had an interview with the plaintiff in connection with employing him as Engineer for constructing Mill buildings. But at that time Mr. Theagaraja Chetti was attempting to get the services of Mr. V.T. Srinivasa Ayyanger who was still in Government service. Until that matter...
Renganatha Iyengar Vs. Sundararaja Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.111
Jackson, J.1. In this case the District Munsif of Devakottah found that the petitioner's suit on re-valuation was beyond his jurisdiction. He ordered him to pay the deficient Court-fee within 15days and when that was not done he rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule II, Civil Procedure Code.2. There is come divergence of opinion as to what is the proper course in these circumstances but the only case in the authorised reports is Kannuswami Pillai v. Jagathambal 46 Ind. Cas. 265 : 41 M. 701 : 35 M.L.J. 27 : 8 L.W. 145 : (1918) M.W.N. 497 : 24 M.L.T. 46 which, in my opinion, accords with the plain reading of the Statute. If a Court finds a suit beyond its jurisdiction it cannot do more than order it to be presented in the proper Court. The District Munsif in this case had no jurisdiction, to reject the plaint, and I cancel the order. He is directed to return the plaint.3. The petition is allowed with costs....
Thangammal Ayiyar Vs. Krishnan (Minor) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad132; (1929)57MLJ756
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit instituted by the 1st plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 500 as vakil's fees due to him in respect of his appearance as pleader on behalf of the defendant's deceased husband, the Zamindar of Nagaram, in Summary Suit No. 559 of 1923 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukotta. The 1st plaintiff died subsequent to the filing of the suit and his undivided sons were added as his legal representatives, plaintiffs 2 and 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff, the deceased vakil Appasami Aiyar, appeared in the above suit for 28 hearings and the late Zamindar of Nagaram agreed to pay him at a certain rate per diem, and that, even if the Court thinks that the agreement is not valid, the sum claimed should be paid on the basis of quantum meruit. The defendant pleaded that the contract set up by the plaintiffs is not true or valid, and that, even if the 1st plaintif...
M.R. Sethuratnam Iyer and ors. Vs. Chinna Solan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad206; 122Ind.Cas.164
Anantakrishna Ayyar J.1. On the allegation that the plaintiffs' father obtained a decree against the father of the present defendants and also against the 3rd defendant, in O.S. No. 1180 of 1804, for the suit lands, and took delivery thereof On 27th September, 1908, through Court in execution of the decree, and that in 1909 the defendants trespassed upon about 2 acres of the said lands and in 1917 upon about 5 more acres and that they were also attempting to disturb the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the lands in B schedule, the plaintiffs instituted the original suit for possession of the A schedule lands, and for an injunction and if necessary also possession of the B schedule lands, attached to the plaint, with, mesne profits.2. Of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are brothers, the 3rd defendant disclaimed all interest in the suit lands, and the second defendant was subsequently exonerated by the plaintiffs, and the 1st defendant, the really contesting defendant in the suit, alleged th...
In Re: Annai Errappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.253
ORDERJackson, J.1. This is a reference from the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor. In four appeals the Joint Magistrate of Chandragiri has ordered a re-trial of the appellant because certain witnesses at the original trial gave evidence in English and their evidence was not translated to the appellant as required by Section 361, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in my opinion, was right in holding that the Code lays down that such translation should be made; and with all respect I do not agree with the ruling in Hari Narayan Chandra v. Emperor : AIR1928Cal27 , that the first two paragraphs of Section 361 are mutually exclusive. An accused person is often in a much better position than his Pleader to follow the drift of the evidence and it is obvious that he ought to be kept informed of what is being said, But the Sub-Divisional Magistrate misdirects himself when he observes that the irregularity cannot be cured under Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code. No dou...
Kottapalli Bapayya Vs. Official Receiver of Guntur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ816
1. The question is, does the case fall within Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act? The insolvent applied under that section for the annulment of his adjudication. The section runs thus:Where, in the opinion of the Court, a debtor ought not to have been adjudged insolvent, or where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the debts of the insolvent have been paid in full, the Court shall, on the Spplication of the debtor, or of any other person interested, by order in writing, annul the adjudication.2. It is admitted by his counsel that the debts of the insolvent have not been paid in full, but it is stated that all the creditors gave him a complete and full discharge. That is not enough, for what the section contemplates is, payment of the debts in full. This is the effect of the numerous decisions on the point. In Muhammad Ibrahim v. Ram Chandra I.L.R.(1925) A. 272 which we follow, the authorities are set forth and we do not propose to refer to them in any detail. Th...
K. Ambu Nair Vs. E.C. Kelu Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad305
1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit tiled by the plaintiff to redeem a mortgage. The plaintiff prays that defendant 1 may be directed to surrender possession of the properties mentioned in Sch. A to the plaint to the plaintiff on payment by him within a time to be fixed by the Court of such amount as may be found due to defendant 1 towards the usufructuary mortgage referred to in the plaint on taking an account of the amounts received by defendant 1 and the amount which he is liable for in respect of damages for waste committed on the properties and to hand over to the plaintiff all the title deeds, rent deeds and other documents connected with the property. The plaintiff also claims mesne profits at the rate of 2,000 paras of paddy per year.2. The case for the plaintiff is that the properties described in Sch. A to the plaint originally belonged to defendant 2's tarwad, that the said properties along with two other items of property held by the tarwad on ...
M. Lakshumana Aiyar and ors. Vs. S. Rajam Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ118
Curgenven, J.1. These petitions arise out of an election held on 27th August, 1928, to fill three vacancies in the 3rd Ward of the Wallajah Municipality. The election was conducted by the Chairman and the result, so far as it concerns us, stood as follows:1. T. K. Ratnavelu Chetti .. 170 votes |2. M. Lakshumana Aiyar .. 127 ' |3. K.S. Mallappa Chettiar .. 123 ' | Elected.4. S. Rajam Aiyar .. 116 ' |5. P. Venkataswami Naidu .. 109 ' |2. Accordingly Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were declared elected. An election petition (O. P. No. 11 of 1928) was then filed by S. Rajam Aiyar (No. 4) in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vellore, alleging that the Chairman had shown undue partiality, that he had counted votes in favour of the successful candidates which ought to have been rejected, that he employed an inadequate staff, that the results were announced without checking or verification, and that if there had been subsequent check the petitioner and other candidates who had failed would have been elected. Th...
Gouriambal Achi Vs. P. Al. V.V.R. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad138
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This case raises a point of some novelty. The respondent filed a suit to enforce a mortgage. He impleaded as defendants Gowriambal Achi, the present appellant, her son and grandson. I extract the following passage from the judgment in that suit in April 1924:It appears to me that as a suit to enforce a mortgage the suit must fail. Gowriambal Achi has no title to the property. The properties wore left by will absolutely to Gowriambal's mother. It was recited that on the latter's death Gowriambal was to succeed to any of the properties which her mother had not alienated. Gowriambal's mother is still alive, and Gowriambal may never succeed to any of this property. I do not see how Gowriambal by her deed can create any charge on the property.2. On this reasoning, Mr. Stodart, the District Judge, passed the following decree:I give the plaintiff a decree for the sum claimed Rs. 6,500, with simple interest at the contract rate, namely 12 per cent of Rs. 6,166, * * * * T...
M. Lakshumanayya and ors. Vs. S. Rajam Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad195
Curgenven, J.1. These petitions arise out of an election held on 27th August 1928, to fill three vacancies in the 3rd Ward of the Wallajah Municipality. The election was conducted by the Chairman and the result, so far as it concerns us, stood as follows:Votes.1. T.K. Ratnavelu Chetti ... 170 Elected.2. M. Lakshmana Iyer ... 127 '3. K.S. Mallappa Chettiar ... 123 '4. S. Rajam Iyyar ... 116 '5. P. Venkataswami Naidu ... 109 '2. Accordingly 1, 2 and 3 were declared elected. An election petition (O.P. 11 of 28) was then filed by S. Rajam Ayyar (No. 4) in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vellore, alleging that the Chairman had shown undue partiality, that he had counted votes in favour of the successful candidates which ought to have been rejected, that he employed an inadequate staff, that the results were announced without checking or verification, and that if there had been Subsequent check the petitioner and other candidates who had failed would have been elected. This petition was filed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »