Chennai Court October 1931 Judgments
A.M.M. Murugappa Chettiar Vs. Arangaraja Kumaranandaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad247; 137Ind.Cas.622; (1932)62MLJ281
1. These are appeals from a judgment of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., decreeing the suit under appeal in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a pandaram, the 1st defendant is a banker carrying on business in Madras and the 2nd defendant is a minor defending by his mother and guardian and the son of one S.M.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar of Pallathur who died some years ago. The plaintiff is the founder and head of a mutt at Karaikal known as the Sriman Swami Mutt. With a view to create an endowment for that mutt, the plaintiff collected subscriptions from several persons and the amounts so collected were paid to the makers of four hundis in favour of the plaintiff. The aggregate sum of those four hundis is Rs. 11,996-7-6. In December, 1925, the plaintiff endorsed those four hundis to the 2nd defendant's father Ramanathan Chetty with instructions to him to realise the amount thereof and invest the amount so collected on the plaintiff's behalf and account with a respectable Nattukottai Chetti f...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Parthasarathi Chetty Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ387
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff in this case, the appellant before us, purchased 800 maunds of salt from one Chengalvaroya Chetty who was a salt licensee at Cove-long factory, Chingleput District. He applied on the 27th February, 1923, for permission to remove the said 800 maunds and obtained the same. But on account of certain restrictions made by the Government authorities as to the hours of removal he could not remove the salt till the 1st March, 1923. On that day the salt-tax had been increased by another Rs. 1-4-0 per maund. This sum was not collected from the plaintiff at that time and the salt was taken away. A demand for the payment of the sum of Rs. 1,000 was made on the 23rd March, 1923 and although he denied the liability, he paid the Rs. 1,000 under protest as he was threatened with coercive process and in order to avoid attachment and loss of his property. He brought this suit against the Secretary of State for India to recover the sum he paid under protest.2. The defen...
Tag this Judgment!Kathayan Chettiar Vs. Govindaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad416; 137Ind.Cas.320
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The suit was to recover the money due on a promissory note Ex. A executed by defendant 1 on 12th May 1924. The consideration for the promissory note consisted of the money due on a prior promissory note Ex. B dated 9th March 1929 plus a sum of Rs. 60 advanced to defendant 1. Defendant 1 became an insolvent on 21st November 1922. He was discharged by an order of Court on 19th March 1924. It will be seen that the suit promissory note Ex. A was executed by defendant 1 after his discharge but Ex. B which forms one of the items of consideration for Ex. A was executed before he became an insolvent. Section 44(2), Prov. Ins. Act, provides that an order of discharge shall release the insolvent from all debts provable under the Act; and the debt due under Ex. B being a debt provable under the Act, it became discharged by the force of the section. The lower Court therefore gave a decree to the plaintiff with respect to the sum of Rs. 60 and the interest due on it.2. In this r...
Tag this Judgment!Khambham Chenchayya Vs. Bandarupalli Bapayya (Dead) Represented by Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ177
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that a mortgage deed is valid. He is transferee of the mortgagee, 10th defendant.2. The mortgagors, defendants 1 to 3, were declared insolvent on a creditor's petition. The alleged act of insolvency was the fraudulent execution of this very mortgage and it was prayed that the alienation be declared void. (I.P. No. 53 of 1918, p. 2 of documents.)3. The 10th defendant got notice of this petition and remained ex parte (paragraph 6 of Order, page 5 of documents). The Judge in his 'Order' found that there was no opposition to the petition to adjudge the debtor insolvent, declared the alienation void and vested the assets in the Official Receiver (paragraph 7). It will be noted that this 'Order' does not in terms adjudicate the debtor an insolvent. But on the same date an. Order of Adjudication was also issued (page 3 of documents). More than that a Court is not required to do under Section 27, Act V of 1920 and it is difficult to say if the...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarimull Chandukchand (Died) Represented by Chuni Bai Vs. N.R. Vedac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad234; (1932)62MLJ180
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Waller. He had before him a suit claiming reliefs against seven defendants. The 1st defendant was one of the trustees of a: temple in the Chingleput District and the reliefs sought against him were his removal from trusteeship, an account and various other reliefs which are properly to be obtained under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. It was alleged that he had badly administered the trust and that, as a result of the maladministration, some property belonging to the temple and set out in the plaint got into the hands of the other defendants. The only defendant appealing here is the 2nd defendant and he is admittedly the alienee of the most valuable of all the trust property and that property is wholly situate in Madras. It is quite true that the suit has all the appearances of a suit under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The sanction of the Endowments Board has...
Tag this Judgment!Pendyala Subbarayudu Vs. Gudivada Gopayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad290; (1932)62MLJ310
Curgenven, J.1. This petition is preferred against an order of the District Judge of Guntur directing under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure that a complaint be made under Sections 193 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The facts may be briefly stated as follows:--The, petitioner had executed a mortgage deed to the respondent for Rs. 8,000, and subsequently he filed a suit (O.S. No. 1136 of 1927) against third parties and applied for an interim injunction, in which application the respondent, under summons, produced the document in Court. The production was on 7th January, 1928, and an order granting the injunction, and thus terminating the proceeding in which the mortgage bond was produced, was passed two days later, on the 9th, but the bond was not taken back from the Court's custody by the mortgagee. Then some time later the respondent obtained a money decree against the petitioner in O.S. No. 164 of 1925, and proceeded to bring the mortgaged pro...
Tag this Judgment!Thayingoli Valiya Kalyani Vs. Vayarodathil Parkum Thayingoli Krishnan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad305; (1932)62MLJ525
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. 2nd and 3rd defendants were holding certain properties under a janmi. On the 28th January, 1909, the 2nd defendant executed in favour of the 1st, Ex. I, called 'kanom-kuzhikanom mortgage' document, under which the 1st defendant was entitled to hold the properties till the 28th January, 1921. Subsequently the 2nd defendant received some renewal fee from the 1st and executed on the 19th December, 1918, Ex. III, in his (1st defendant's) favour. The 2nd defendant seems to have subsequently changed his mind and executed in favour of the plaintiff a melcharth, Ex. A, on the 5th January, 1919. After the expiry of the period covered by Ex. I, the plaintiff on the basis of Ex. A instituted O.S. No. 419 of 1921 to redeem Ex. I. The 1st defendant contested the suit, and relied on an agreement by the 2nd defendant to renew Ex. I, and produced Ex. III to evidence the said agreement; he also pleaded that the 2nd defendant had, as a matter of fact, executed a renewal of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kambhan Chenchayya Vs. Bandarupalli Bapayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad233
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that a mortgage deed is valid. He is transferee of the mortgagee, defendant 10.2. The mortgagors defendants 1 to 3, wore declared insolvent on a creditor's petition. The alleged act of insolvency was the fraudulent execution of this very mortgage and it was prayed that the alienation be declared void: I.P. No. 53 of 1918, p. 2 of documents.3. Defendant 10 got notice of this petition and remained ex parte (para. 6 of order, p. 5 of documents). The Judge in his 'order' found that there was no opposition to the petition to adjudicate the debtors insolvent, declared the alienation void and vested the assets in the Official Receiver: para. 7. It will be noted that this 'order' does not in terms adjudicate the debtor an insolvent. But on the same date an order of adjudication was also issued: p. 3 of documents. More than that a Court is not required to do Under Section 27, Act 5 of 1920 and it is difficult to say if the 'order' is more than ...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarimall Chandukchand and anr. Vs. N.R. Vedachala Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.74
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Waller, J. He had before him a suit claiming reliefs against seven defendants. Defendant No 1 was one of the trustees of a temple in the Ohingleput District and the beliefs sought against him were his removal from trusteeship, an account and various other beliefs which are properly to be obtained under Section 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. It was alleged that he had badly administered the trust and that as a result of the maladministration, some [property belonging to the temple and set out in the plaint got into the hands of the other defendants. The only defendant appealing here is defendant No. 2 and he is admittedly the alliance of the most valuable of all the trust property and that property is wholly situate in Madras. It is quite true that the suit has all the appearances of a suit under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The sanction Of the Endowments Board has been obtained and the reliefs sought are, as...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Municipal Council Vs. Thirumalaisami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad292; 137Ind.Cas.585; (1932)62MLJ259
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner in all these cases is the Chairman of the Palamcottah Municipality and the respondents are vakils' clerks living within that Municipality. The Municipality assessed them to profession tax under Section 93 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, for two years 1924-25 and 1925-26 at 8 annjs per half year alleging that they were exercising a profession within the Municipality. The respondents refused to pay alleging that they were not exercising any profession but only paid servants of the vakils who employed them and who were residing outside the Municipal limits at Veeraraghavapuram within the Tinnevelly Municipality. The Municipality brought Small Cause Suits for the recovery of Rs. 2 from each of the respondents. In the plaints the defendants were described as exercising a profession. During the hearing, the Municipality seems to have put forward an alternative ground that the defendants are holding appointments in Palamcottah. It was admitted ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »