Chennai Court March 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.
T. Mohamed Yusuf and ors. Vs. Khan Bahadur Muhammad Sadulla Badsha Sah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ344
1. The question that has been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench isWhere a decree is passed against the partnership in its firm name and the plaintiff at the time of filing his suit knew that a person who was afterwards discovered to be a partner was dead, but did not know that he was a partner, can execution be issued against the legal personal representatives of such deceased person in respect of assets in their possession belonging to the deceased partner?2. Before the enactment of Act V of 1908, the procedure that was generally adopted in Indian Courts in respect of suits against firms was to have the names of the members of the firm set out in the plaint and to have them or one of them personally served with a summons. In the case reported in Yeknath Babaji v. Gulabchand Kahanji (1863) 1 Bom. H.C.R. 85 Forbes, Westropp and Tucker, JJ., held thatthe suit being instituted against the firm, the names of the members of the firm should have been mentioned in the plaint, and tha...
Official Assignee Vs. E. Narasimha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad705; 118Ind.Cas.506
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. I have had the advantage in this case of perusing the judgment about to be delivered by Beasley, J. It sums up the results arrived at after a long discussion between him, Odgers and myself and it may be taken to be the judgment of the Court. I only add a few words because I feel it is incumbent upon me to do so as for 8 years I was in charge of the insolvency jurisdiction of the original side of the High Court. The procedure which was prohibited by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Jnanendra Bala Debi v. Official Assignee of Calcutta : AIR1926Cal597 was that persons alleged to be indebted to the bankrupt estate-known in our Court for some reason, I never quite understood, as 'garnishees' should be examined, which of course in effect means cross-examined, by the Official Assignee under the powers of Section 36 and that statements made by them not amounting to a definite admission of indebtedness to the estate should be used under Section 7 to ask the Cour...
P.K.A.C.T. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Padmanabha Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad625
Wallace, J.1. This petition is presented in the following circumstances: The High Court by its decree in Appeal No. 273 of 1918 dated 25th October 1920, settled a scheme for the administration of the Sri Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam at Tiruvannamalai. Under that scheme the adminstration of the Devasthanam was put under a Board of Trustees, subject to the control and supervision of the South Arcot Devasthanam Committee formed under Act 20 of 1863: see Rules 1 (b) and 2 of the scheme. By Act 2 of 1927, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, Section 8, Act. 20 of 1863, so far as it applied to Hindu religious endowments and therefore to this Devasthanam, was repealed, and the South Arcot Devasthanam Committee formed under the Act (20 of 1863) presumably came to an end. We say 'presumably' because there is no provision, transitory or otherwise in Act 2 of 1927 putting an end to such committees formed under Act 20 of 1863 or devolving their duties on similar committees formed' under Act ...
Jujjavaraupu Gangaraju Vs. Kandiboyina Venki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.102
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, West Godavari. One Venki preferred a complaint against the Village Magistrate of her village, charging him with wrongful confinement and bribery. The Sub-Magistrate took cognizance only of the former offence and issued notice to the Village Magistrate. The latter appeared and objected that sanction for the prosecution was necessary under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub-Magistrate overruled the objection and the Village Magistrate took the matter up to the Sessions Judge, who, disagreeing with the Sub-Magistrate, has made a reference to this Court.2. Sub-section (1) of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code as amended by Section 50 of Act XVIII of 1923, runs as follows:When any person who is a Judge within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, or when any Magistrate, or when any public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a Local Government or some higher auth...
In Re: Vasudeva Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.68; (1929)57MLJ114
1. This appeal relates to an occurrence arising out of the strike on the Section 1. Ry. in July last. All of the seven appellants have been convicted of offences under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 127 of the Railways Act. The first appellant has been further convicted of an offence under Section 128 of that Act and the other appellants have been convicted of the same offence with reference to Section 149, Indian Penal Code.2. The first objection taken is that the word 'offence' in Section 149 being confined to offences under the Penal Code, the conviction of the second to seventh appellants under Section 128 of the Railways Act with reference to that section is illegal. That has been held in Aydrooss v. Emperor (1922) 17L.W. 21 and In re Puvanur Athawnu (1924) 20 L.W. 914. We have considered the question at length and with care and find ourselves constrained to say that those decisions are right. The position is curious and unsatisfactory. A large body of men set ou...
In Re: Guruvappa Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad510
ORDERWallace, J.1. The only substantial points of law 'shit have been argued are two: (1) that the complaint is not in accordance with law, and (2) that the delay in directing this prosecution has resulted in gravely prejudicing the petitioner. As to (1) the complaint is faulty in that, while extracting the sentence which, as will be seen from the Magistrate's order on the petition for sanction, forms the real subject-matter of the alleged, perjury, it contains further extracts from the deposition of the petitioner which are not intended to be made matter of charge. There is here, however, no doubt whatever as to which statement on oath is to be the matter of charge in the trial because the order on the sanction petition makes that clear. The question then is whether this Court should now direct the Magistrate to withdraw this [complaint and present a revised one, a [proceeding which will cause further delay in the trial of the case, or whether it is sufficient that this Court should h...
Chockalinga Chetty and ors. Vs. Kolagiri Munigan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad569
Phillips, J.1. In these second appeals, it is contended that the finding of the lower Courts that the suit lands constituted a jagir is incorrect. This would appear to be primarily a finding of fact but it has very frequently been contended in this Court that when a finding of fact is based upon the construction of documents, that necessarily implies a further question of law. I am not saying that in this present case the argument has been put forward in that broad form but it has been so put forward before me very frequently. That it is thoroughly untenable is clear from the judgment of the Privy Council in Midnapur Zamindari Co. Ltd v. Umacharan Mandal A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 187, where a finding which was based on documentary evidence alone was held to be a decision upon a question of fact, with which the Court could not interfere in second appeal. Their Lordships remark:It is clear therefore, that, unless it can be shown that he (namely the District Judge) has misdirected himself in point...
C. Chockalinga Chetty and ors. Vs. Kolagiri Munigan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.47
William Watkins Phillips, J.1. In these second appeals, it is contended that the finding of the lower Courts that the suit lands constituted a jaghir is incorrect. This would appear to be primarily a finding of fact but it has frequently been contended in this Court that when a finding of fact is based upon the documents, that necessarily implies a further question of law. I am not saying that in this present case the argument has been put forward in that broad form but it has been put forward before me very frequently. That it is thoroughly untenable is clear from the judgment of the Privy Council in Midnapur Zemindary Co. Ltd. v. Umacharan Mandal 74 Ind. Cas. 482 : 45 M.L.J. 663 : 21 A.L.J. 723 : A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 187 : 4 P.L.T. 627 : 33 M.L.T. 691 : (1923) M.W.N. 832 : 25 Bom. L.E. 1287 : 40 C.L.J. 16 : 29 C.W.N. 131 (P.C.) where a finding which was based on documentary evidence alone was held to be a decision upon a question of fact, with which the Court could not interfere in secon...
In Re: Guruvappu Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.112
ORDERWallace, J.1. The only substantial points of law that have been argued are two (1) that the complaint is not in accordance with law and (2) that the delay in directing this prosecution has resulted in gravely prejudicing the petitioner. As to (1) the complaint is faulty in that, while extracting the sentence which, as will be seen from the Magistrate's order on the petition for sanction, forms the real subject-matter of the alleged prejury, it contains further extracts from the deposition of the petitioner which are not intended to be made matter of charge. There is here, however no doubt whatever as to which statement on oath, is to be the matter of charge in the trial because the order on the sanction petition makes that blear. The question then is whether this Court should now direct the Magistrate to withdraw his complaint and present a revised one, a, proceeding which will cause further delay in the trial of the case or whether it is sufficient that this Court should here and...
Nittala Yellamma and anr. Vs. Nittala Suryanarayanamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad782
1. Appellant 1 died without leaving any legal representatives. Her appeal abates. Respondents 1 and 3 are entitled to recover the costs against her estate, if any.2. Appellant pressed his portion of the appeal that he was not party to the suit and that he was only a guardian of defendant 1 and he ought not to be made liable for the costs of the plaintiffs. The appellant relies on Narasimha Rau v. Lakshmipati Rau [1881] 3 Mad. 263 a decision on Code of 1877. Now we have got Section 35 of the present Code which uses the words 'by whom' and we think these words are wide enough to include next friends and guardians of minor plaintiffs and defendants. Such a contention is consistent with the requirements of justice and with the rules of English law : see Morgan v. Morgan 12 T.L.R. 199. This seems to be the view taken by Phillips and Devadoss, JJ., in V. Krishnayya v. Ramayya : AIR1928Mad590 , but we think that an order as to costs can be made against a guardian-ad-Iitem even if he is not a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »