Chennai Court April 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 Municipal Council Vs. the South Indian Railway Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ251
Ramesam, J.1. In this case, the Municipal Council of Kumbakonam assessed the South Indian Railway Company for the year 1921-22 on a certain footing. The tax imposed was Rs. 632-14-6. A demand notice for this amount was sent on 31st July, 1921 and the amount was paid. A foot-note to this demand notice mentioned the fact that the demand was provisional and was 'subject to revision under proviso (a) to Section 82(2) of Act V of 1920 on receipt of particulars from the Executive Engineer re present estimated cost of erecting the building.' It may be mentioned that proviso (a) to Section 82(2) of Act V of 1920 really indicates the mode of assessment. It does not relate to any power of revision. Such power is really contained in Rule 8 of Schedule IV attached to the Act. This rule says that the Chairman may amend the assessment books at any time by altering the amount of tax. In February, 1923, the Chairman amended the tax and sent a communication to the Railway Company informing them of the ...
The Sabapathi Press Co., Ltd. Vs. R. Sabapathi Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ426
Ramesam, J.1. The first point argued in this appeal is a question of law. It has been contended before us by the Chairman of the Sabapathi Press Co., Ltd., who argued the case personally, that this petition for winding up filed by some shareholders who have paid up their share capital fully is not maintainable. Under Section 166 of the Companies Act, an application to the Court for the winding up of a company shall be by petition presented either by the company or by any creditor or creditors, contributory or contributories, etc. Section 156 of the Act runs thus:In the event of a company being wound up, every present and past member shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be liable to contribute to the assets of the company to an amount sufficient for payment of its debts and liabilities and the costs, charges and expenses of winding up, and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves, with the qualifications following.2. Clause (iv) lays down the ...
Ankineedu Prasad Bahadur Garu and anr. Vs. Mandava Jaggayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad745
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I think the order of the District Judge is right. The decree was passed by the District Munsif of Avauaigadda on 25th April 1911. The decree-holder applied on 19th April 1923 for transmission of this decree to the District Munsif's Court at Gudivada. The decree was transmitted by an order made on 5th July 1923 and it was received by the District Munsif of Gudivada on 12th July 1923. In the meantime, on 20th April 1923 the decree-holder applied to the Gudivada Munsif for execution of his decree. On that date, the application was clearly incompetent as the decree had not then been received at Gudivada. It was dismissed and, thereupon, the plaintiff applied for its restoration on 30th July 1923. His prayer was granted by the District Munsif. The District Judge is right in pointing out that the District Munsif had no power to restore an application which was defective from want of jurisdiction.2. I am now asked on behalf of the plaintiff to treat the application date...
Bagiyathachi Vs. Narayanaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad741; 122Ind.Cas.797
Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal relates to three items of properties which originally belonged to one Thiyagu Chettiar. Alagu Achi got the properties under the will Ex. D, executed in her favour by her brother-in-law Thiyagu Chettiar. Alagu Achi executed Ex. A settlement deed in favour of defendant 1 and the plaintiff claims the properties under an othiusufructuary mortgage-for a term, executed by defendant 1 in plaintiff's favour. Defendant 3 is the real contesting defendant. His case is that he is entitled to the properties and not defendant 1.2. The District Munsif decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour for possession of these items. On appeal by defendant 3, the learned Subordinate Judge modified the decree of the District Munsif and decreed that:the plaintiff do recover half of items 1 to 3 after dividing the same with due regard to good and bad quality.3. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal while defendant 3 has preferred the memorandum of objections, eac...
Minakshi Ayi Vs. Subramanian Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad175
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Chokkalingam Pillai died about 35 years ago leaving no issue, and on his death two widows, Valliammai and Minakshiayi, inherited his properties. The two widows sold certain properties belonging to the estate to pay off the debts incurred by their husband. Chokkalingam Pillai, and afterwards they entered-into an oral partition by which each got about nine kulies of land; old survey No. 46-C was among the properties thus divided by them. And in that partition Valliammai got the western half of this survey number, while Meenakshiayi, defendant 5 in the suit, got the eastern half of this survey number. Valliammai alienated the western half of survey No. 46-C to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title from whom the plaintiff purchased the same. Valliammai died in 1916. The plaintiff as purchaser of Valliammai' s right, in the western moiety of survey No. 46-C, instituted the original suit for possession of the same from defendants 1 to 4 who were let into possession b...
P. Gnanamma and anr. Vs. Rajaseetharamachandra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad429
1. This E.P. No. 69 of 1927 was put in for recognition of a transfer of the decree in O.S. No. 58 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore. The first respondent is the transferee decree-holder. The objections raised by the judgment-debtor to the transfer were disallowed and the petition allowed. The appeal is against that order.2. The judgment-debtor had filed E.A. No. 365 of 1926 before the District Court alleging that there had been an adjustment of the decree. This petition was transferred to the Subordinate Judge for disposal and it appears to have been disposed of at the same time as the present petition and adversely to the judgment-debtor but the order has not been filed.3. The first point for determination in the present petition has been stated by the lower Court as follows;Whether the agreement pleaded by the judgment-debtors even if true operates as an adjustment of the decree within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P. C,4. In para. 5 of the...
The Sabapathi Rao Press Co., Ltd. Vs. R. Sabapathi Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad240; 120Ind.Cas.372
1. The first point argued in this appeal is a question of law. It has been contended before us by the Chairman of the Sabapathi Press Co. Ltd., who argued the case personally that this petition for winding up filed by some share-holders who have paid up their share capital fully is not maintainable. Under Section 166 of the Companies Act, an application to the Court for the winding up of a Company shall be by petition presented either by the Company or by any creditor or creditors, contributory or contributories, etc. Section 156 of the Act runs thus:In the event of a Company being wound up, every present and past member shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be liable to contribute to the assets of the Company to an amount sufficient for payment of its debts and liabilities and the costs, charges and expenses of the winding- up, and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves, with the qualifications following...2. Clause (iv) lays down the follo...
Pamidimarri Gnanamma and anr. Vs. Rajaseetharamachendra Sree Ranga Bhu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.480
1. This B.P. No. 69 of 1927 was put in for recognition of a transfer of the decree in Order Section No. 58 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore. The first respondent is the transferee decree-holder. The objections raised by the judgment-debtor to the transfer were disallowed and the petition allowed. The appeal is against that order.2. The judgment-debtor had filed E.A. No. 365 of 1926 before the District Court alleging that there had been an adjustment of the decree. This petition was transferred to the Sub-Judge for disposal and it appears to have been disposed of at the same time as the present petition and adversely to the judgment-debtor but the order has not been filed.3. The first point for determination in the present petition has been stated by the lower Court as follows: 'Whether the agreement pleaded by the judgment-debtors even if true operates as an adjustment of the decree within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code.' In pa...
The Municipal Council of Kumbakonam Vs. the South Indian Railway Compa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.854
1. In this case, the Municipal Council of Kumbakonam assessed tha South Indian Eailway Company for the year 1921-22 on a certain footing. The tax imposed was Rs. 632 14 6. A demand notice for this amount was sent on 31st July, 1921 and the amount was paid. A foot-note to this demand notice mentioned the fact that the demand was provisional and was 'subject to revision under proviso (a) to Section 82 (2) of Act V of 1920 on receipt of particulars from the Executive Engineer re present estimated cost of erecting the building.' It may be mentioned that proviso (a) to Section 82 (2) of Act V of 1920 really indicates the mode of assessment. It does not relate to any power of revision. Such power is really contained in Rule 8 of Schedule IV attached to the Act. This rule says that the Chairman may amend the assessment books at any time by altering the amount of tax. In February 1923 the Chairman amended the tax and sent a communication to the Eailway Company informing them of the altered ass...
Marimuthu Pillai Vs. Gopalakrishna Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad774; (1929)57MLJ314
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant before me, and the only question that arises in this Second Appeal is whether the plaintiff, the hypothecatee, is entitled to post diem interest after 23rd May, 1911, the date for payment fixed in the document. The document recites that the mortgagor borrowed Rs. 1,000 from the mortgagee, and it states that the amount would be paid within a period of two years, namely, 23rd May, 1911... There is also a provision as regards payment of interest once in six months, and a further provision that, if interest be not regularly so paid, the interest in arrears should carry interest at 12 per cent. Contrary to the expectations of the parties, the mortgagor did not pay the amount in 1911, the period of two years fixed in the document, and the suit was instituted by the mortgagee in 1923 to recover the principal, interest, and interest on interest as provided in the document. Both the Lower Courts have held in favour of the plaintiff as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »