Chennai Court October 1930 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.
In Re: Lazar Fernando and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1930
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ854
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioners, husband and wife, were convicted under the Opium Act (I of 1878) of illicit possession of 17 tolas of opium. The evidence against them was that at a search conducted by the Excise Assistant Inspector assisted by the local Police a packet of 17 tolas of opium was seized from a gramophone box placed on a safe in the western room in their house at Tuticorin on the night of 4th June, 1929. Both the Courts have found that search was properly conducted and that the opium was in fact seized as alleged by the prosecution.2. Two lines of defence were adopted: one that the 1st petitioner could not be said to be in possession of the opium, as he had left Tuticorin for Colombo on 29th May and was at Colombo on the 4th June and therefore knew nothing of the opium; second, that the 2nd petitioner who with her two children aged 18 and 20 was in the house at the time of the search was not in sole occupation of the house but that 1st petitioner's elder brot...
Ediga Chagapuram Pedda Nagappa Vs. Paramala Venkatarami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad137
Wallace, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is the matter of interest which the lower Court has decreed on the mortgage bond on which the suit was based. The plaintiff is the appellant and he claims that the lower Court was wrong in disallowing enhanced interest on default in the payment of the mortgage amount under the bond. The bond provided that on failure to pay the principal and interest under it by one year from the date of the bond the mortgagor was to pay on 'the said aggregate amount interest at the rate of Re. 1-8-0 per cent per month,' that is, 18 per cent was the default rate, 15 per cent was the original rate. The lower Court has found that this is a clause under which interest at the default rate is payable from the date of the bond, and on that understanding it has held that the clause is a penal clause and cannot be enforced at all. The plaintiff here argues that the interpretation of the bond by the lower Court was under a misapprehension of the meaning of th...
P.V.S. Kabalamurthi Pillai Vs. P.V. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.655
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This summons is taken out by the 5th defendant. He applies that the Receivers may either be removed or in the alternative suitable directions be given to them. After hearing the application very fully, I have come to the conclusion that they should be continued but that in the interests of the estate their duties should be more precisely defined than in the orders under which they were appointed.2. [His Lordship stated the facts and dealt with the charges made against the Receivers and proceeded.]3. By far the most important question that has been argued is, what is the amount of remuneration to which, the receivers are entitled? The point really turns on the meaning of the expression 'gross sale' in the order of Court dated the 2nd June, 1925. Paragraph 12 of the order reads thus: ' With regard to the condiment business the said Receivers do retain 5 per cent, on the gross sales in their hands as and for their remuneration for the said condiment business,'4. It ...
Paredath Chori George Vs. Thithi Umma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad363; (1931)60MLJ214
Reilly, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover what he called a 'house site' in Cochin town from the defendants and prayed that the defendants might be ordered to pay the arrears of rent due and to demolish the house built on the land. The Subordinate Judge who tried the case made a decree for the plaintiff, rejecting defendant 6's claim that she was entitled to compensation for the house under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements, Act. The learned District Judge of South Malabar on appeal held that defendant 6 was entitled to compensation for the house and remanded the suit to the Subordinate Judge. This appeal is against the order of remand.2. Ex. F is the lease counterpart executed by defendant 6's predeoessor-in-title. It is dated the 29th October, 1911. It shows that he had been in, possession under a previous lease for a short period and had built a house on the site. .In Ex. F he agreed that, if he was required to surrender the property for any of certain ...
In Re: B.G. Kolandavelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ270
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a misfeasance summons under 'section 235 of the Indian Companies Act. Certain breaches of duty are alleged against the Directors and some other officers of the Company and the summons asks, that they may be ordered to bring into Court a sum of about Rs. 42,000. An objection in limine is taken that the applicants have no locus standi. If they are creditors, as they allege themselves to be, they can apply under the section to which I have referred. The question is, are they creditors of the Company and have they as such a locus standi?2. The Company was started in 1878 under the name of the Madras Native Permanent Fund, Ltd., with a capital of two lakhs divided into two thousand shares of Rs. 100 each. Each shareholder was to pay one rupee per month per share and, at the end of seven years, he was to receive from the Company Rs. 100 and his account was then to be closed; in other words, on his paying a sum of Rs. 84, he receives Rs. 100. The objects of the ...
P.V.S. Kabalamurthi Pillai Vs. P.V. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad500; (1931)60MLJ332
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This summons is taken out by the 5th defendant. He applies that the receivers may either be removed or in the alternative suitable directions be given to them. After hearing the application very fully, I have come to the conclusion that they should be continued but that in the interests of the' estate their duties should be more precisely denned than in the orders under which they were appointed. [His Lordship stated the facts and after dealing with the charges made against the receivers proceeded:]2. By far the most important question that has been argued is, what is the amount of remuneration to which the receivers are entitled? The point really turns on the meaning of the expression 'gross sales' in the Order of Court, dated 2nd June, 1925. Paragraph 13 of the Order reads thus:With regard to the condiments business the said receivers do retain 5 per cent. on the gross sales in their hands as and for their remuneration for the said condiment business.3. It was ...
In Re: Madras Native Permanent Fund Ltd. and B.G. Kolandavelu Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad792
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a misfeasance summons under Section 235, Companies Act. Certain breaches of duty are alleged against the directors and some other officers of the company and the summons asks that they may be ordered to bring into Court a sum of about Rs. 42,000. An objection in limine is taken that the applicants have no locus standi. If they are creditors as they allege themselves to be, they can apply under the section to which I have referred. The question is, are they creditors of the company and have they as such a locus standi?2. The company was started in 1878 under the name of the Madras Native Permanent Fund Ltd., with a capital of two lakhs divided into two thousand shares of Rs. 100 each. Each shareholder was to pay one rupee per month per share and at the end of seven years, he was to receive from the company Rs. 100 and his account was then to be closed; in other words, on his paying a sum of Rs. 81 he receives Rs. 100. The objects of the company as stated i...
Ghulam Mohideen Sahib Vs. Md. Oomer Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ133
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This summons raises a question relating to a Solicitor's lien. In O.P. No. 44 of 1923 costs were awarded to Ghulam Mohideen against Govindarajulu by an order, dated the 17th of December, 1924. Mr. Sudarsana Raju, as attorney, appeared then for Ghulam Mohideen. Nothing seems to have been done for about six years. Then in April, 1930, at his client's request, the Attorney filed his bill of costs which was taxed by the Registrar on the 28th of April, 1930. In doing 'so, the Registrar overruled the objection of Rajabahadur, the legal representative of Govindarajulu, who, in the meantime, had died. In execution of the order for costs against Rajabahadur, certain jewels were seized and brought into Court. This happened on the 7th of August, 1930.2. I must now turn to a suit filed by Dawood Saheb against Ghulam Mohideen, C.S. No. 76 of 1925. In that suit, on the 26th of July, 1925, Dawood obtained a decree against Ghulam Mohideen. In execution of that decree, he applied...
In Re: Krishnama Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ404
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The two appellants, the 1st and the 2nd accused in the Court below, were charged with the murder of Krishnama Naicken early in the morning of the 2nd April, 1930, at a place called Peedampalli. They were both convicted of the offence and the 1st appellant was sentenced to death and the 2nd appellant to transportation for life. [After narrating the facts of the case their Lordships proceeded]2. Reference has been made to the statement of the deceased recorded by the Sub-Assistant Surgeon, P.W. 1. That is Ex. B. It is very brief and is as follows:One Krishnama Naicken, son of Velappa Naicken of Peedampalli assisted by his brother-in-law, assaulted me with koduval, stick, etc., this early morning at about 4-30 a.m. I was decoyed by accused Krishnama Naicken's wife on plea of helping her from being brutally assaulted by her husband. I, believing this to be true, went to a pallam near Nilama Naicken's garden. The accused's brother-in-law caught hold ...
The Official Receiver of Secunderabad Vs. Gumidelli Lakshminarayana (D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad474; (1931)61MLJ774
Curgenven, J.1. The question of law which this appeal raises is whether a vesting order made by the District Court of Secunderabad prevails against a prior attachment of a decree effected by a Court in British India. In 1922 a preliminary decree for partition was passed in C.S. No. 420 of 1922 on the file of this Court. In 1926 a creditor of the plaintiff in that suit, who had obtained a decree in Bombay, attached this preliminary decree. In 1928 the plaintiff was adjudicated an insolvent by the District Court of Secunderabad under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920) which is in force in that area and an order was passed vesting his property in the Official Receiver of Secunderabad.2. The legal argument divides into two stages:(1) What is the status of the District Court of Secunderabad, and (2) what is the effect within British India of a vesting order passed by that Court. The former question presents little difficulty. Although administered by the Governor-Ge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »