Chennai Court July 1930 Judgments
M. Namberumal Chetty Vs. M. Nainiappa Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad16; (1930)59MLJ850
Curgenven, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Beasley, J., as he then was, under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, making a complaint under Section 195(i)(b) of the same Code against one M. Namberumal Chetty in respect of an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is not represented before us. We have perused his memorandum of appeal and the order of the learned Judge and we have heard the learned advocate for the respondent, who has raised the preliminary point that no appeal will lie in the circumstances of this case.2. The complaint was filed not at the instance of any applicant but suo motu by the learned Judge, and the learned advocate's argument is that in such circumstances the terms of Section 476-B do not provide for an appeal. As an authority for this position he refers us to Mt. Satto v. Emperor (1928) 30 Cri. L.J. 163 which is a decision by a single Judge of the Lahore High Court based upon what he terms the genesis of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Vaithilingam Pillai Vs. Kandaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad1; (1931)60MLJ713
Reilly, J.1. In one respect I am prepared to go further than my learned brother. In my opinion no appeal lies in this case. As has been pointed out, the District Munsif disposed of the suit on all the issues framed by him, and it is not contended that those issues did not cover the whole suit as it originally stood or omitted any contention raised by the defendant in his written statement or at the settlement of issues. When a Court has disposed of the whole suit as it stands before it in that way, to say that it has disposed of the suit on a preliminary point merely because it has not dealt with the further issues which might have arisen if the suit had been framed otherwise originally or if an amendment of the pleadings had been allowed later in the history of the suit appears to me to be almost an abuse of language. I am clear that nothing in the opinion of the Full Bench in Raman Nair v. Krishnan Nambudripad I.L.R. (1922) M. 900 : 43 M.L.J. 354 would justify us in going so far as t...
Tag this Judgment!Moonrumugamkondan Asari Vs. Chockalingam Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad913; 129Ind.Cas.33; (1930)59MLJ629
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. The question referred to us for decision is--Is it open to an undischarged insolvent to maintain a suit regarding his after-acquired properties subject to the right of the Official Receiver to intervene in such proceedings?2. In our view, upon the facts of this case this question does not arise and we are not disposed to enter into any further discussion of this question which is purely one of academic interest. 3. The facts of the case may be quite shortly stated. The insolvent was the plaintiff in the District Munsif's Court. He was also an undischarged insolvent. His case as set out in the plaint was that he got emeralds from one Sita Lakshmi Ammal for sale and that he gave them to the defendant in the suit for sale. The value of the emeralds was fixed, so he alleges, at Rs. 1,000 and it was agreed that the excess realised by the defendant by the sale should be shared equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. He sued to recover the emeralds...
Tag this Judgment!Thaticherla Pichamma Vs. the Official Receiver of Cuddapah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad834; (1930)59MLJ686
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The question referred to us for decision runs as follows:Whether a transfer of property of the description given in Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920) made by an insolvent more than two years before the date of the actual order of adjudication but within two years of the date of the presentation of the petition for adjudication could be annulled by the Court under Section 53 of the Act at the instance of the Official Receiver.2. The decision of this Question depends upon the correct interpretation of the wording in Section 53 of the Act. The portion of the section relevant for our purpose is where it says that the adjudication of the insolvent should have been made within two years after the date of the transfer. As to the meaning to be attached to the point at which limitation has to be computed, there has been a conflict of judicial opinion. This High Court as also the Calcutta High Court has been of one opinion, namely, that a petition to a...
Tag this Judgment!Taticherla Pichamma Vs. Official Receiver of Cuddappah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1930
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.154
1. The question referred to us for decision runs as follows:Whether a transfer of property of the description given in Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act (Act V of 1920) made by an insolvent more than two years before the date of the actual order of adjudication, but within two years of the date of the presentation of the petition for adjudication could be annulled by the Court under Section 53 of the Act at the instance of the Official Receiver.2. The decision of this question depends upon the correct interpretation of the wording in Section 53 of the Act. The portion of the section relevant for our purpose is where it says that the adjudication of the insolvent should have been made within two years after the date of the transfer. As to the meaning to be attached to the point at which limitation has to be computed, there has been a conflict of judicial opinion. This High Court, as also the Calcutta High Court, has been of one opinion, namely, that a petition to annul an alienation...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Kudva and ors. Vs. Juvappa Kamathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad577
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On the allegation that the defendants were chalgeni tenants under the plaintiff and that the tenure had been determined by due notice to quit the plaintiff instituted the original suit to recover possession of the land with some profits. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.2. The first point noted by the lower appellate Court for decision is: 'Do the defendants hold the suit property on kayamgeni or chalgeni?' The finding upon this point is contained in paras. 8 and 9 of the lower appellate Court's judgment. After noticing that the defendants had been paying only a uniform rent of Rs. 18 per annum, that in about 1902 or 1903 the defendants refused to pay increased rent, and that in about 1912 the defendants informed the plaintiff under Ex. O (reply notice) that they were holding the properties as kayamgeni tenants, the lower appellate Court proceeded to state as follows:In the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Tevar Vs. M. Subban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad983; 129Ind.Cas.79
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant against the order of the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly in Crl. Revn. Petn. 46 of 1929. Against an order of discharge passed by the Special Third Class Magistrate of Tinnevelly, in C.C. 286 of 1929 the Complainant filed Cr. Revn. Petn. 27 of 1929 to the Sessions Judge, who directed a further inquiry into the case, for the purpose of finding out on the evidence already adduced, whether an offence under Section 424, I.P.C., can be brought home to the accused. In ordering a further inquiry for that purpose the learned Sessions Judge specifically directed that it should be made by the Sub-Magistrate of Nanguneri, as he was the person who tried the case originally, when he was the Special Third Class Magistrate, Tinnevelly. Such an order is not quite in consonance with Section 436, of the Code, which does not authorize a Sessions Judge to direct further inquiry by a particular Magistrate subordinate t...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Frank Johnson Sons and Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad65; (1930)59MLJ839
Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee and as such the assignee of the estate and effects of one Kancherla Krishna Rao, an insolvent, against an order of Waller, J., dismissing an application made by him in the said insolvency, for an order directing both or either of the two respondents, namely, Frank Johnson Sons & Co., Ltd. and the United Refineries, Burma, Ltd., to pay him damages for breach of agreement. The United Refineries, Burma, Ltd., the 2nd respondent, was an incorporated Company formed in 1920 by the Indo-Burma Oilfields, Ltd. and Yomah Oil Co., Ltd., who were both engaged in the production of crude oil in Burma, for erecting, maintaining and operating a refinery for crude petroleum oil and marketing the products of such refinery, and it had its registered office in Burma. Frank Johnson Sons & Co., Ltd., the 1st respondent, who apparently did business both at Rangoon and Calcutta, had been appointed the sole selling agents in India of the petrol...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Appaswami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ853
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. It is urged that the joint trial of the petitioner with two other persons who did not appeal to the Sessions Judge and have not applied to this Court was illegal.2. The allegation against them was that all the three of them were together associates in a course of criminal conduct such as to bring them under Clauses (a)(d)(e) and (f) of Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In such cases Section 117(5) clearly gave the Magistrate, if he thought it just, the power to deal with all the accused in the same enquiry. But it is said that joint enquiries under Section 117 are not legal where part of the enquiry is under Clause (f) of Section 110 and for this the decision in In re Kutti Goundan : AIR1925Mad189 which itself cites Hari Telang v. Queen-Empress I.L.R. (1900) C. 781 is relied upon. There is a sentence in the latter decision which is incorporated into the former to the effect that there can be no connection between them (the accused) in regard to th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R.V., Advocate, High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad927
Beasley, C.J.1. This matter comes up before us on a report by the Tribunal of the Bar Council. A charge was framed by the Tribunal against the advocate of having received a sum of Rs. 150 on behalf of the complainant who was the plaintiff decree-holder in a suit in the Small Cause Court, Madras, and appropriated that money to his own use without any authority from him. The facts of the case are that on 5th November 1927 the advocate received a cheque for Rs. 150 from the defendant judgment-debtor in the suit already mentioned in pursuance of the decree in that case and that on 7th November he cashed that cheque; and the case against him is that he put the proceeds of that cheque into his own pocket and utilized those proceeds for his own purposes. The petitioner made demands upon him for payment of the money by EX. K, dated 25th November 1927, Ex. A, dated 3rd December 1927 and Ex. C, dated 26th January 1928. On 1st February 1928, by adjustment, the advocate paid Rs. 105-9-9 towards th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »