Chennai Court April 1930 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Kunthi Ammal and anr. Vs. Sarangapani Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad170; (1931)60MLJ498
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order passed by the City Civil Judge in a suit to have an agreement submitting a case for arbitration filed in Court and to provide for the arbitration in accordance with law. The agreement sought to be enforced was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants referring disputes about their joint family property to five panchayatdars, asking them to divide it among the signatories to the document. One of the panchayatdars refused to act as an arbitrator. For this and other reasons the defendants contended that the agreement could not be enforced. They also contended that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it fell within the scope of the Indian Arbitration Act (IX of 1899) which vests the High Court with exclusive jurisdiction to try suits of this nature. The learned City Civil Judge overruled these contentions and passed the following order:I, therefore, direct that Bhagirathi P...
S.M.S. Subramanian Chettiar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Sinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad801; (1930)59MLJ634
Anantakriskna Aiyar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal raised two important questions of law, one turning on the construction to be placed upon Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, and the other on Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Order 34, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.2. The first question has been answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant by a Full Bench of this Court at an earlier stage of this Letters Patent Appeal.3. The only other question that remains for decision is whether the plaintiff, on the facts stated in the Order of Reference, is entitled to redeem the 1st defendant's mortgage. The plaintiff was a money decree-holder against the judgment-debtor, the mortgagor, and in execution of his money-decree he attached the mortgaged properties. Pending the attachment, the 1st defendant, the mortgagee, filed a suit to recover the money due upon his mortgage but he failed to make the plaintiff who was then the attaching decree-holder a par...
Sree Rajah Malraju Venkata Narasimha Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ260
ORDERRamesam, J.1. This is an application by Sri Rajah Malraju Venkatanarasimha Rao Bahadur Garu of Narasaraopet for a writ of certiorari to be issued to the three respondents who are (1) the Chairman of the Narasaraopet Municipal Council elected at a meeting on the 5th of November, 1929, (2) the Municipal Council, and (3) the Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Council who presided at the meeting of the 5th of November for electing the Chairman, and for setting aside the alleged resolution of a meeting on that day declaring the 1st respondent to have been duly elected as Chairman. The petitioner is the other candidate for election.2. An application was made to the Government by the petitioner for setting aside the election on the ground of various irregularities in the election; but the Government while finding that 'the action of the Councillors in violating the provisions of Rule 4 of the rules for the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Councils prescribing secret vo...
Venkata Narasimha Rao Bahadur, Zamindar Garu Vs. Municipal Council, Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad122
Ramesam, J.1. This is an application by Sri Rajah Malraju Venkatanarasimha Rao Bahadur Garu of Narasaraopet for a writ of certiorari to be issued to the three respondents who are : (1) the Chairman of the Narasaraopet Municipal Council elected at a meeting op 5th November 1929, (2) the Municipal Council and (3) the Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Council who presided at the meeting of 5th November for electing the Chairman and for setting aside the alleged resolution of a mooting on that day declaring respondent 1 to have been duly elected as Chairman. The petitioner is the other candidate for election.2. An application was made to the Government, by the petitioner for setting aside the election on the ground of various irregularities in the election; but the Government while finding thatthe action of the Councillors in violating the provisions of Rule 4 of the rules for the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Councils prescribing secret voting was highly irregulardi...
Polur Reddi Vs. Munusami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad765; (1930)59MLJ308
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This case comes before us on a reference made by our learned brother Jackson, J.2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was made against eight persons on a charge of dacoity and came before the Second Class Sub-Magistrate of Tirupattur. The Sub-Magistrate thought that there was no basis for that charge; but as of the eight persons accused before him one was alleged to have been armed with a stick and a deadly weapon, he thought that the charge was one under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, rioting armed with deadly weapons and accordingly sent the case on under Section 346(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Joint First Class Magistrate for disposal. The Joint First Class Magistrate after going into the case differed from the view taken by the Second Class Sub-Magistrate and thought that the evidence disclosed that the accused might be guilty of some lesser offence. In dealing with the matter he pointed out that the fifth accu...
Pilla Ramaswami Vs. President, Taluq Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad766; (1930)59MLJ346
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case comes before this Full Bench in the following circumstances. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 164 of the Madras Local Boards Act, the Taluq Board of Tadepalligudam imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 upon the petitioner in respect of an alleged encroachment in the village of Tadepalligudam. He 'is said to have erected a shed without permission upon ground belonging to the Taluq Board. The petitioner did not pay the penalty and accordingly the matter was referred to the Magistrate's Court under Section 221 which provides that, in default of payment of such a sum, it may be levied under the warrant of a Magistrate. At the hearing of the case the point arose whether the Magistrate was competent to go into the question whether the alleged encroachment was true and, therefore, justified the imposition of the penalty; and following certain decisions, the Court came to the conclusion that it was not open to it to enquire into an issue of this character...
Pilla Ramaswami Vs. President, Taluk Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1930
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.490
1. This criminal revision case comes before this Full Bench in the following circumstances. Under Sub-section (1), Section 164 Madars Local Boards Act, the Taluk Board of Tadepalligudam imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 upon the petitioner in respect of an alleged encroachment in the village of Tadepalligudam. He is said to have erected a shed without permission upon ground belonging to the Taluk Board. The petitioner did not pay the penalty and accordingly the matter was referred to the Magistrate's Court under Section 221 which provides that, in default of payment of such a sum, it may be levied under the warrant of a Magistrate. At the hearing of the case the point arose whether the Magistrate was competent to go into the question whether the alleged encroachment was true and, therefore, justified the imposition of the penalty and following certain decisions the Court came to the conclusion that it was not open to it to enquire into an issue of this character and accordingly although it r...
K.P. Muhammad Kasim Rowther Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ220
1. The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax is as follows:Whether on the facts found in this case it is open to the Income-tax authorities to require the petitioner, who is assessed under Section 23(4), to produce all the original accounts of the firm carrying on business outside British India.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee, who resides, in British India, carries, on business in. Penang in partnership with another who is in Penang and that in respect of the partnership the assessee is entitled to a 4|5th share and the other partner in Penang to l|5th share. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to produce all his account books, day books, ledgers, etc., of the Penang business. The assessee did not comply with the request. Before the Income-tax Officer he stated his inability to do so and he produced before him his l5th sharer who stated that he was unwilling that the assessee should produce the Penang account books, it is quite clear on re...
A.T. Pannirselvam Vs. A. Veeriah Vendayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad376
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. In this case, it cannot be said that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to advance the hearing of the case, without the consent of both parties. The Civil Procedure Code is silent on] this point, but Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice provides for the advancement of the hearing and the procedure to be followed. The Subordinate Judge has, in the exercise of his discretion under the aforesaid rule, advanced the hearing to 16th April 1930, for the consideration of one point, which he says is a pure question of law. I hold that he has jurisdiction to advance the hearing date.2. It is strenuously contended that much is the hardship or inconvenience caused to the petitioner by this advancement of the hearing. I do not think fit to interfere in revision when there is no illegal exercise of jurisdiction. But I am sure that the learned Subordinate Judge would afford full opportunity to either party, for establishing his contention on this issue, and if any party shoul...
Mohamed Kassim Rowther Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad763; 126Ind.Cas.595
1. The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax is as follows:Whether on the facts found in this case it is open to the Income-tax authorities to require the petitioner who is assessed under Section 23(4) to produce all the original accounts of the firm carrying on business outside British India.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee who resides in British India carries on business in Penang in partnership with another who is in Penang and that in respect of the partnership the assessee is entitled to a four-fifths share and the other partner in Penang to a one-fifth share. The Income Tax Officer called upon the assessee to produce all his account-books, daybook, ledgers, etc., of the Penang business. The assessee did not comply with the request. Before the Income Tax Officer he stated his inability to do so and he produced before him his one-fifth sharer who stated that he was unwilling that the assessee should produce the Penang account books. It is quite cle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »