Chennai Court July 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.
Suppiah Mooppanar Vs. Mallappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad342
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first point taken by Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar is that under Section 43, it is the debtor alone that can apply for extension. But as has been pointed out in Jetaji Peraji Firm v. T. Krishnayya A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 278, Section 43 is controlled by Section 27:It is equally clear that the Court has the power to extend the period and it may be so done, not merely at the instance of the debtor but on the application of anybody interested. The section merely requires that sufficient causa shall be shown, but it does not say that the debtor alone may apply for extension or shall show sufficient cause.2. In this case, it was a creditor that applied for enlargement of time and the Official Receiver agreed to an order being made. This objection is therefore overruled.3. The second point raised by Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar is that his client, the alienee, was not given notice of the application. We may point out that it is desirable that in such cases notice should go to the aliene...
In Re: Veera Koravan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ145
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The three appellants have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore of the offence of the murder of one Muthusami Asari under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The first accused has also been charged with the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code and the third accused of the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. All the four assessors were of opinion that the three accused were guilty of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the said opinion.2. The prosecution case is that at about 7 p.m., on Saturday, the 15th December, 1928, the deceased Muthusami Asari, P.W. 1 and P.W. 18 were returning to Nallagoundanpalayam from Gobichettipalayam, that, when Muthusami Asari came opposite to the third accused's garden, the third accused shouted to accused 1 and 2 that they had caught Muthusami Asari after all, that accused 1 and 2 bodily carried...
In Re: Veera Karavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.488
1. The three appellants have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore of the offence of the murder of one Muthusami Asari under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The first accused has also been charged with the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. All the four assessors were of opinion that the three accused were guilty of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the said opinion.2. The prosecution case is that at about 7 P.M. on Saturday the 15th December, 1928, the deceased Muthueami Asari, P.W. No. 1 and P.W. No. 18 were returning to Nallagoundanpalayam, that, when Muthusami Asari came opposite to the third accused's garden, the third accused shouted to accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they had caught Muthusami Asari after all, that accused Nos. 1 and 2 bodily carried away Muthusami Asari into the third accused's garden and that Muthusami Asari was beaten to death with...
Subbuswami Goundan Vs. Kamakshi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad834; (1929)57MLJ642
ORDER1. This is a petition praying for an order directing the bringing up to the Court of a minor married girl and also for an order directing that she be handed over to her husband, who is the petitioner. The young girl is the wife of the petitioner and the first respondent is the mother of the minor girl and the second her step-brother. The petition is founded on the allegation that after the marriage the wife having got into the custody of the two respondents, they have illegally detained her. If these facts are proved, then it is quite sufficient for us to make the order prayed for, if we are satisfied that it is in the interests of the wife that she should be handed over to the care of the person who should naturally have her in his charge, namely, her husband. The petitioner married this young girl on the 9th March, 1927. She is said to have been about 10 or 11 years of age then--the evidence as to the exact age of these children is usually rather indefinite and vague--but assumi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›