Chennai Court November 1931 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.
Bullemma Vs. Golusu Appalanarasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ230
ORDER1. This case has had a somewhat remarkable history. The petitioner charged the respondent, his wife and others with the offences of robbery and defamation. Ultimately the respondent alone was convicted of the latter offence and his conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge in appeal. The petitioner then filed a suit for damages for defamation against the respondent and another person. A copy of the judgment confirming the conviction was produced, but the District Munsif held, quite rightly, that he was not bound to follow it and that he had to arrive at a decision independently on the evidence before him. In the result, he dismissed the suit. The next thing that happened was that this Court, in revision, set aside the conviction and ordered a re-trial. The case was re-tried and ended again in the conviction of the respondent. The latter tried to get admitted in evidence a copy of the judgment of the Civil Court, but the Magistrate rejected it, being of opinion that it was irrele...
The Madras Central Urban Bank Ltd. and the Madras City Co-operative Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad474; (1932)62MLJ720
Reilly, J.1. These cases refer to two Banks which have been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, namely,' the Madras Central Urban Bank, Limited, and the Madras City Co-operative Bank, Limited, both of which carry on their operations in Madras. The Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras demanded profession tax from these two Banks tinder Section 111 of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919. Under that section only persons who are not liable to companies' tax under Section 110 of the Act are liable to profession tax. Both the Banks objected to the Commissioner's demands, at that stage apparently maintaining that they were liable neither to profession tax nor to companies' tax. They appealed to the Standing Committee of the Corporation, which rejected their appeals. Then, under Rule 15 of SchIV of the City Municipal Act they appealed to the Court of Small Causes and at that stage contended that, if they were liable to be taxed at all, it was under Section 110 of the Act to...
A.D. Narayana Sah and ors. Vs. Kannamma Bai (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1931
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.422; (1932)62MLJ608
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Eddy, J. The plaintiff in the Court below, who has since died, was a Hindu widow claiming to be a member of the Bhujakshatriya community. The first two defendants are brothers; and all the defendants with the exception of the 2nd defendant are responsible officers of that community. The plaintiff's claim was for damages for slander and for a declaration, injunction and damages for excommunication. Her case was that the defendants orally stated that she had given birth to an illegitimate child in the Gosha Hospital, Madras. The learned Trial Judge found that all the defendants uttered the slander complained of and gave the plaintiff Rs. 2,000 in respect of her claim for damages. Then the next claim of the plaintiff was that she was excommunicated by the defendants without being given an opportunity of defending herself against a charge of unchastity made by two women to the defendants that she had given birth to an illegitimate child at the Gosha ...
(Padmanabhini) Ramanamma Vs. Golusu Appalanarasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad254
ORDER1. This case has had a somewhat remarkable history. The petitioner charged the respondent, his wife and others with the offences of robbery and defamation. Ultimately the respondent alone was convicted of the latter offence and his conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge in appeal. The petitioner then filed a suit for damages for defamation against the respondent and another person. A copy of the judgment confirming the conviction was produced, but the District Munsif held, quite rightly, that he was not bound to follow it and that he had to arrive at a decision independently on the evidence before him. In the result, he dismissed the suit. The next thing that happened was that this Court, in revision, set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial. The case was retried and ended again in the conviction of the respondent. The latter tried to get admitted in evidence a copy of the judgment of the civil Court, hut the Magistrate rejected it, being of opinion that it was irreleva...
Pandmanabhani Ramanamma Alia Bullemma Vs. Golusu Appalanarasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.348
1. This case has had a somewhat remarkable history. The petitioner charged the respondent, his wife and others with the offences of robbery and defamation. Ultimately the respondent alone was convicted of the latter offence and his conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge in appeal. The petitioner then filed a suit for damages for defamation against the respondent and another person. A copy of the judgment confirming the conviction was produced, but the District Munsif held, quite rightly, that he was not bound to follow it and that he had to arrive at a decision independently on the evidence before him. In the result, he dismissed the suit. The next thing that happened was that this Court, in revision, set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial. The case was retried and ended again in the conviction of the respondent The latter tried to get admitted in evidence a copy of the judgment of the Civil Court, but the Magistrate rejected it, being of opinion that it was irrelevant for...
Tallapragada Sadasivarayudu Vs. Choppara Venkataswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad289; (1932)62MLJ598
1. In the year 1839 a village called Atchampalem was granted by the Zamindar of Nuzvid to the ancestors of the first three defendants. They were to pay a' kist of Rs. 34 a year and to maintain fifteen peons to watch the frontier bordering on the Nizam's territory. The 8th and 6th defendants were admitted as tenants by the Inamdars some time before 1913. In 1918 the Zamindar resumed the grant as the service was not being performed and issued an ordinary ryoti puttah to the first three defendants. In 1920 the plaintiff, who was admittedly aware of the resumption, took a conveyance of their interest from the 5th and 6th defendants and, as a result, claims to have a right of permanent occupancy in the suit village.2. The Lower Appellate Court found that the grant was one made in lieu of wages and therefore resumable. It also found that the first three defendants were landholders within the meaning of the Estates Land Act and that the village was an estate, also within the meaning of that A...
(Makarla) Venkataramanujamma Vs. (Kodavanlapalli) Chinna Venkata Reddi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad327; 137Ind.Cas.715
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner assigned her interests in a mortgage decree to respondent 1 benami for respondent 2, and application was made by the former for recognition of the transfer Under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C. In that proceeding the petitioner filed an objection that the full amount of the consideration of Rupees 1,500 had not been paid, but at the hearing she was absent and the Court found that this was not true and recognized the assignment and allowed execution. The petitioner has now sued in forma pauperis to recover the balance of the consideration and the learned District Munsif of Anantapur has dismissed the application on the ground that the suit is barred by virtue of the previous proceedings.2. If it is so brarred it must be because the question of the payment of the consideration is res judicata by virtue of the decision passed in the execution proceedings. It is conceded before me that the mere nonpayment, in full or at all of the consideration for assignment, ...
Velankayala Chendrayya Vs. Bobbili Appalamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad588; 140Ind.Cas.11
Curgenven, J.1. It is objected in this case that the District Munsif passed the decree without allowing the ten clear days provided by Article 158, Lim. Act, to expire for applications to set aside the award filed. The award was filed in Court on the 30th June and notice on the same day given to the parties for the 11th July, that date being clearly fixed in order to comply with the article in question. The defendant's case is that the following day, the 1st July, was a Sunday, and that on the 2nd July he applied for a copy of the award, which was not obtained until the 9th. Accordingly he had only the interval between the 9th and the 11th instead of the ten clear days allowed. Under Section 12(4), Limi. Act, the period required for obtaining copy is to be excluded in computing the time allowed by Article 158. It is clear accordingly that the Court did in fact pass the decree before the defendant had had his ten days for applying to set the award aside.2. In this case however I am aske...
Pervela Ramakrishniah Vs. Pandiri Satyanandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.636; (1932)62MLJ226
Curgenven, J.1. Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 777 and 778 of 1931.--These petitions arise out of two suits O.S. Nos. 56 and 58 of 1926 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry. The plaintiffs in both suits are the same, being commission agents who also undertook to finance the operations of the merchants who employed them. The defendants are timber merchants who used to procure timber from the Agency Tracts and despatch it to the plaintiffs for sale. In O.S. No. 58 there is a single defendant, who traded alone, and in O.S. No. 56 the 4th defendant was his partner in dealings of this character. The plaintiffs claimed considerable sums of money as due to them on accounts, being the excess of advances made over the value of timber received. They pleaded in each case a settlement of account as having taken place in the year 1922, these settlements being followed by further dealings. The defendants disputed these settlements, although not in very unequivocal terms. The...
Baijnath Karnani Vs. Vallabhadas Damani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad661; (1932)62MLJ566
Stone, J.1. This case raises a preliminary point of importance and one which has not apparently been raised before although one would have thought that this matter in question must have arisen, in India, many times before. It is suggested by each side that the reason it has not been raised before that is that the answer is so obvious that the question is hardly susceptible of argument whereupon then followed on each side an able and exhaustive argument to show that the obvious was obvious2. The point in question is this: Where in a foreign State there is an action and in that action a judgment is given and from that judgment appeal is made which appeal is dismissed is the 'judgment' in that action the judgment of the Court of first instance or is it the judgment of the Appellate Court for the purposes of the Limitation Act3. This action is brought to enforce a judgment given in the State of Bikaner. The period of limitation in question is that provided by Article 117 of the Schedule of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »