Chennai Court July 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: R. Veeraraghavachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.233
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 Causes Court, Madras, and appropriated that money t(c) his own use without any authority from him. The facts of the case are that on the 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 the 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 utilised those proceeds for his own purposes. The petitioner made demands upon him for payment of the money by Ex. K, dated the 25th November, 1927, Ex. A dated the 3rd December, 1927, and Ex. C dated the 26th January, 1928. On the 1st February, 1928, by adjustment the Advocate paid Rs 10...
In Re: Appasamy Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.449
ORDERPandalai, J.1. It is urged that the joint trial of the petitioner with two other parsons who did not appeal to the Sessions Judge and have not applied to this Court was illegal. The allegation against them was that all the three of them were together associated in a course of criminal conduct such as to bring them under Clauses (a), (d), (e) and (f), Section 110, 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 inquiry. Bat it is said that joint inquiries under Section 117 are not legal where part of the inquiry is under Clause (f), Section 110, and for this the decision in In re Kutti Goundan 86 Ind. Cas. 49 : 47 M.L.J. 689 : (1925) M.W.N. 57 : 26 Cr. L.J. 673 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 189, which itself cites Hari Telang v. Queen Empress 27 C. 781 : 4 C.W.N. 531, is relied upon. There is a sentence in the latter decision which is incorporated into the former to the effect that the...
T.S. Venkatabalagurumurthi Chettiar Vs. T.A. Balakrishna Odayar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad1009; (1931)60MLJ90
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal which originated in a suit in the District Munsif's Court of Kumbakonam (O.S. No. 4 of 1920). In that suit the plaintiff who was carrying on a maligai business sued the Sri Sarangapaniswami temple and its two trustees personally to recover a sum of Rs. 900 and odd which represented the balance of money owing to him by the temple for the supply of groceries to the temple, those groceries having been supplied for the purpose of the puja. There was also a claim for interest. It is worthy of note that the dealings between the plaintiff and the defendants were from the 1st January, 1912 to the 14th March, 1919 and we are here 11 years afterwards, finally I hope, adjudicating upon the plaintiff's claim. In the District Munsif's Court the hearing of this quite a small claim took 16 days, it took one day when it was taken up on appeal by the Receiver in this case to the Subordinate Judge's Court--and there the decree of the District Mu...
T.V. Gopalakrishna Aiyar and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver of South M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad998; (1930)59MLJ525
Reilly, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Malabar in an insolvency matter. The appellant, a creditor of the insolvent, has put in a claim before the Official Receiver for an amount which he says is due to him from the insolvent. The learned District Judge has found that the Official Receiver is entitled to set off against that claim a time-barred debt due from the creditor to the insolvent. I do not think it can be disputed, and I did not understand Mr. Anantaraman for the Official Receiver to dispute, that a creditor in an insolvency can prove only a debt which at the date of the adjudication has not become time barred. If we examine Sections 34 and 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, I do not think that there can be any doubt on that point. But It is suggested that, although the creditor cannot recover from the insolvent a time-barred debt and although a day before he is adjudged insolvent the insolvent himself could not set off against the c...
Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. Devasigamani Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad241
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition tiled by the accused against the conviction and sentence of fine imposed on him for an offence under Sections 379 or 424, I. P.C. The case against the petitioner is that he dishonestly cut and removed two trees which stood at the backyard of the house belonging to the complainant.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that the failure of the Magistrate to examine the accused under Section 342, Criminal P.C., after all the prosecution witnesses were examined, is an illegality which vitiates the whole trial. There is no doubt as to the facts which have to be taken into consideration in deciding this technical objection. After the examination of P. W's. 1 to 3 a charge was framed on 4th May 1929 and then an additional witness, namely. P. W. 4, was examined on 28th June 1929. After the examination of this additional witness the Court did not question the accused in accordance with Section 342, Cri...
In Re: Velivalli Brahmaiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.633; (1930)59MLJ674
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a petition by the accused 1 to 3 against the conviction and sentence of fine passed by the First Class Bench at Guntur. The charge against these accused was under Sections 504 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from the merits of the case, one objection that is taken against the legality of the conviction is, in my opinion, sufficient to set it aside. It is clear from the register of summary trials maintained by the aforesaid Bench, that the judgment has in fact been signed only by two of the three Magistrates who heard and decided the case, the other having only initialled it. The mandatory provision in Section 265 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to the effect, that 'a judgment shall be signed by each member of the Bench present taking part in the proceedings.' There is no definition of the word 'sign'' in the Criminal Procedure Code. The word 'signing' had been interpreted in some judicial decisions and that meaning can be safely adopted for ...
B. Sivaram Dubai Vs. R. Rajagopala Misra and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad918; (1931)60MLJ514
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This appeal and the revision petitions arise out of an order passed by the learned District Judge of Madura, by which he appointed two new persons as trustees of the Ranga Chattram charities in the place of the two old trustees whose term of office expired after they had held office for five years under the scheme. One of the trustees whose term had so expired sought re-appointment and, as he was not re-appointed, he has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal and the connected revision petition. Mr. Rajah Aiyar, who appears for the respondents, the newly appointed trustees, raised a preliminary objection that the appeal does not lie; and the answer of Mr. Ganapathi Aiyar was that the matter in dispute is really covered by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that an appeal lies. He also argues that we should in any event interfere under our revisional powers because, he says, that the learned District Judge was not entitled to make the appointment compla...
Srimath Deivasikamani Annamalai Desikar, Pandara Sannadhi of Tiruvanna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad995; (1930)59MLJ579
Reilly, J.1. In this case a decree was made that the plaintiff should recover certain property from the defendants and that' he should pay to certain of the defendants amounts for improvements. Grammatically those might be two separate provisions in the decree; but I think there is no doubt that the intention of the decree was that on the payment of those amounts the plaintiff should be entitled to recover possession. The learned District Judge adopted a rather curious course in making his decree in respect of those amounts to be paid for improvements. He fixed them provisionally. He provided in the decree that they were subject to revision on the report of a commissioner to be appointed by the Court. There was an appeal against the decree; but it was dismissed by this Court in December, 1918. On the 15th of December, 1919, the plaintiff put in an execution petition, in which he prayed for the appointment of a commissioner to fix the amounts to be paid for improvements and for possessi...
C. Jagannadham Pillai Vs. the Official Assignee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ309
Curgenven, J.1. These three appeals, arising out of two suits tried by Beasley, J., as he then was, may be disposed of together since they relate to the same set of transactions. Jagannadham Pillai and one Somasundaram Chetti (now dead) carried on a hardware and machinery business in partnership from 191.3 to 1923. One of the two suits (C.S. No. 358 of 1924) was brought by Jagannadham Pillai for dissolution of this partnership and for accounts. At the trial it was agreed that the partnership was no longer subsisting so that it became a suit for accounts only. The case for the defendants, who were the sons of Somasundaram Chetti, was that the accounts had already been settled between the partners and indeed on two occasions. In 1920 there was a settlement with effect to the end of December, 1918, with the result that Jagannadham Pillai received Rs. 13,800 as his share of the profits. Again in 1923 there was a second settlement up to the termination of the partnership, and, probably beca...
C. Jagannadham Pillai Vs. Official Assignee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad124; 129Ind.Cas.814
Curgenven, J.1. These three appeals, arising out of two suits tried by Beasley, J., as he then was, may be disposed of together since they relate to the same set of transactions. Jaganntham Pillai and one Somasundaram Chetti (now dead) carried on a hardware and machinery business in partnership from 1913 to 1923. One of the two suits (O.S. No 358 of 1921) was brought by Jagannadham Pillai for dissolution of this partnership and for accounts. At the trial it was agreed that the partnership was no longer subsisting so that it became a suit for accounts only. The case for the defendants, who were the. sons of Somasundaram Chetti was that the accounts had already been settled between the partners and indeed on two occasions. In 1920 there was a settlement with effect to the end of December 1918, with the result that Jagannadham Pillai received Rs. 13,800 as his share of the profits. Again in 1923 there was. a second settlement up to the termination of the partnership; and, probably because...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »