Chennai Court November 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 Nedungadi Bank, Ltd. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad184; (1930)59MLJ22
Reilly, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff is the Official Assignee, representing the estate of Dumaine & Co., who have been adjudged insolvents. Dumaine & Co., it appears, were exporters of groundnuts, and in the course of their business they pledged a large quantity of groundnuts to the Nedungadi Bank, who are the defendants, received loans on these groundnuts, sold the groundnuts to various persons in other countries and had them shipped by the defendants, who received the bills of lading and the bills of exchange drawn on the purchasers and applied the proceeds of the bills of exchange after getting them discounted by another bank towards the repayment of the loans they had made to Dumaine & Co., crediting the balance to Dumaine & Co. The Official Assignee in this suit alleges that the defendants have not accounted for 7,169 bags of groundnuts and prays that they may be delivered to him or their value, about Rs. 1,59,000, or in the alternative that this sum of Rs. 1,50,000 may be paid...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Lakshmamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ520
Horance Owen Compton Beasealy, C.J.1. On the 9th February last the deceased a young boy had climbed a fruit tree to get some berries or some other fruits which had grown on that tree. Beneath the tree was a little girl, the daughter of the accused, the respondent here. The little boy threw the fruits down on the ground from the tree above and the little girl picked up those fruits, whereupon the little boy climbed down from the tree and beat the little girl with a cholam stick. She went off to her home and complained to her mother (the respondent) about the beating. The mother then came up and pursued the little boy. Up to this point both the prosecution case and the defence case agree. The little boy sustained very serious injuries. He had three ribs broken on the one side and four on the other penetrating the pleural cavity and causing his death some two days later. The respondent was charged at the Sessions Court with murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. 2. The defence put f...
Kavanna Vana Ena Swaminathan Alias Chidambaram Pillai Vs. Letchmanan C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1929
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ585
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question we have to decide is, what is the meaning of the expression 'making of the order'' in Sections 73 and 77 of the Indian Registration Act? The plaintiff on 28th September, 1926, presented, to the Sub-Registrar for registration, Ex. A, the sale deed executed in his favour by the 1st defendant. The latter, in spite of notices served upon him, failed to appear before the officer in question, and, on the 16th of October the plaintiff filed a statement requesting the Sub-Registrar to make an order refusing registration. After making an order to that effect on the 18th of October, the Sub-Registrar sent a post-card, Ex. B, to the plaintiff informing him of the order and it reached him on the 19th of October. The plaintiff on the 18th of November applied to the Registrar under Section 73 to establish his right to have the document registered. That section enacts that the application should be made within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal by...
V.M. Raghavalu Naidu and Son Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad648; (1930)59MLJ650
Reilly, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are a firm of timber merchants trading in Madras. They claimed from the Corporation of Madras refunds of timber-tax on a large number of lots of timber, on which they alleged that they had paid timber-tax when importing them into Madras, and which they alleged they had afterwards exported from Madras. The Corporation, who are the defendants in this case, refused to make the refunds. The plaintiffs then sued the Corporation for the total of the refunds claimed by them. The suit was heard by the learned Chief Justice, as Mr. Justice Beasley, and he dismissed it. The plaintiffs appeal.2. In their written statement the defendants maintain that the plaintiffs did not satisfy them that these lots of timber were timber on which tax had been paid when imported into Madras, and that the plaintiffs did not comply with certain bye-laws made by the Corporation, and that, therefore, they were not entitled to the refunds claimed. Under Section 98 of the Madra...
The Vulcan Insurance Company Ltd., by Its Local Representative Chimanl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ337
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a case referred to us for decision by the Chief judge of the Court of Small Causes under Rule 17 of Schedule IV of Madras City Municipal Act (IV of 1919). The Vulcan Insurance Company was assessed to a licence fee under Section 110. The contention of the Corporation is, that the Company is liable to pay Rs. 500 under the scale prescribed on the capital basis; the latter asserts, on the contrary, that it is to be assessed on the basis of gross income and is liable to pay only Rs. 25. The material part of Section 110 reads thus:Every incorporated company transacting business within the city for profit or as a benefit society shall pay by way of licence fee in addition to any other licence fee that may be leviable under this Act a half-yearly tax on its paid-up capital on the scale shown in the taxation rules in Schedule IV but in no case exceeding rupees one thousand, if and as soon as it has transacted business in the city for the period, prescribed in Sec...
Adaikappa Chettiar Vs. Natesan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Mad381
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The lower Court made an order transmitting the decree for execution as against defendants 4 and 5. This appeal has been filed by defendant 5 who impeaches that order. The following pedigree may be found useful: -------------------- | | Lakshman Chetty Ramaswamy Chetti defendant 1 (died) prior to the filing | of O.S. No. 10 of 1912 Kasi Chetti defendant 2 | (died) | | -------------- | -------------------- | | Kasi Chetti Adaikappa Chetti defendant 3 defendant 4 died 29th March 1922 | Adaikappan Chetti defendant 52. A certain Sreenivasa Naicker filed O.S. No. 10 of 1912 in the Sub-Court of Tuticorin for the recovery of about Rs. 23,000 due upon a promissory note executed by Lakshmana, defendant 1, in his favour. In that suit four persons were joined as defendants, Lakshmana and his son (representing one branch) and the two sons of Ramaswami (representing the other branch). I may note at once that defendant 5 was not made a party to that suit. A decree was passed...
Swaminathan Alias Chidambaram Pillai Vs. Lakshmanan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad490; 123Ind.Cas.345
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question we have to decide is, what is the meaning of the expression 'making of the order ' in Sections 73 and 77 of the Indian Registration Act? The plaintiff on 28th September, 1926, presented to the Sub-Registrar for registration, Ex. A. the sale-deed executed in his favour by the 1st defendant. The latter, in spite of notices served upon him, failed to appear before the Officer in question and, on the 16th of October, the plaintiff filed a statement requesting the Sub-Registrar to make an order refusing registration. After making an order to that effect on the 18th of October, the Sub-Registrar sent a post card Ex. B, to the plaintiff, informing him of the order and it reached him on the 19th of October. The plaintiff on the 18th of November applied to the Registrar under Section T3 to establish his right to have the document registered. That section enacts that the application should be made within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal by ...
The Municipal Council, Tiruvarur, Represented by Its Chairman, Mr. S.K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad600; (1930)58MLJ377
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the Municipal Council of Tiruvarur represented by its Chairman. On the 6th of February, 1922, the Municipal Council held an auction of the right to collect tolls in the Municipality for the year 1922-23 and to the 1st defendant was knocked down the right to collect tolls for Rs. 19,925. The printed notice under which the auction was, held required the successful bidder, within ten days of the acceptance of his bid, to make a deposit of two months' rental as security and pay the amount due in twelve equal instalments, the security deposit being adjusted in the rental of the last two months. The notice further provided that for any amount due, the bidder should pay the interest at the rate of one anna per diem for every hundred rupees or fraction thereof. The 1st defendant bid for and accepted the lease of the toll-gates subject to the above conditions. On the, 28th of February, 1922, defendants 1 and 2 jointly put in a petition to the C...
In Re: Gunduthalayan Alias Thailan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ490
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. There were two charges against the accused in the Sessions Court of Salem, one of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and the other of causing hurt with a dangerous weapon under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. He was convicted of both the offences and was given a sentence of transportation for life in respect of the charge of murder and three months' rigorous imprisonment in respect of the other charge.2. When the appeal came up for admission by the High Court the learned Judge who had to consider it admitted the appeal as of course is the invariable custom in cases of murder appeals, and at the same time ordered notice to issue to the accused to show cause why the sentence of transportation for life awarded to him should not be enhanced; so that we have here his appeal against his conviction and also his appearance on notice to show, cause why the sentence passed on him should not be enhanced. 3. The facts of the case can be stated qui...
Yenumula Akkanna and anr. Vs. Sri Rangaraja Bhattar Venkata Perumalla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad486
Jackson, J.1. In the partition suit out of which this petition arises, there is a grandfather plaintiff, a son who remains ex parte, and two grandsons, the elder is ex parte and the younger who filed a written statement claiming 1/6th share in consonance with the plaint, has died. In appointing his legal representative the learned Sub-Judge has held that there was severance in status at least from the date of filing the suit, and therefore the proper legal representative is the boy's mother. Defendants 11 and 12 seek to set aside this order, on the ground that in the case of a minor there can be no severance until the decree is passed. The point is not material, but I think the learned Judge' should have said from the date of the written statement cf the minor defendant, possibly in certain circumstances he grandfather might have disrupted the family by his own authority, but the present plaint does not amount to such an act. The proper view upon which the argument must proceed, is tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »