Chennai Court October 1932 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.
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Ram Narayan Sarma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad173; (1933)65MLJ143
Jackson, J.1. The respondent, an Overseer in the Public Works Department, took leave in January, 1921, and was granted, Ex. F, extensions up to 3rd May, 1923, but wrote on 11th August, 1922, Ex. 3, to the Chief Engineer that he would resign from 6th September, 1922. The Chief Engineer had learnt that during this leave the respondent took employment in a private firm in contravention of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules and of the express orders of the Chief Engineer issued in March, 1921, Ex. D. Accordingly the Chief Engineer wrote on 29th August, 1922, Ex. G, calling on the respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed, and on 26th October, 1922, an order was issued, Ex. J, that respondent was dismissed from the service of the Government for having taken up private employment during leave without permission in contravention of the Rules and in direct disobedience of the orders of March, 1921. At the same time the Executive Engineer of the division to which the responden...
Thangachi Ammal Vs. Mohamed Moideen Maricair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ127
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The question raised in the case is whether the Court-fee paid by her is sufficient.2. The suit was for cancellation of a sale deed executed by the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the land and mesne profits. The consideration for the sale deed was Rs. 2,750. The petitioner paid Court-fee for the cancellation of the sale deed on the amount of the consideration specified in the deed under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act. She also paid Court-fee on the mesne profits. The defendant's contention is that the petitioner should pay Court-fee in respect of the claim for possession of the property also.3. The point for decision is whether the plaintiff is bound to pay Court-fee in respect of the claim for recovery of possession of the land from the defendant. The Lower Court held that the plaintiff should pay Court-fee for possession as well under Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act has been...
In Re: Chintapatla Venkatanarasimha Ramchandra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad358
ORDERBardswell, J.1. This is a petition for excusing the delay in representing a Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. The memorandum of appeal was first filed on 14th April 1930. It was returned on 11th June 1930 for revision of the cause-title and preamble and of certain grounds, and also for the filing of certain affidavits and the stamping of the decree of the first Court. The time allowed was one week but the re-presentation was not made till 19th December 1930, that is after a delay of 155 days. The memorandum was again returned on 24th December 1930, because provisions of law had not been entered, because the affidavit did not contain certain information, because the cause title and preamble needed revision and because the petitions had not been properly stamped. The re-presentation this time was on 30th April 1931, the delay being one of 114 days. Once again the memorandum was returned because the decretal order of the first Court still remained unstamped, because so...
Sivarama Krishna Pattar and ors. Vs. Mannathil Krishnan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1932
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.880
1. The plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with their customary right as villagers of Parali to graze cattle on a paramba belonging to 3rd defendant's sthanam, to walk across it, to perform certain ceremonies at the foot of an arasa or peepul tree on it, to perform pradakshinam round the tree and to use the tank for bathing purposes. The 1st defendant who obtained a melcharth in 1911 obstructed the plaintiffs from exercising these alleged customary rights.2. The court of first instance dismissed the suit; the court of first Appeal allowed it and granted an injunction against the 1st defendant. In second appeal the suit was dismissed and against this decree the present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred.3. Before us the right to grazing has been given up by the appellants; so the only matters in question are the right of way across the paramba, the right to bathe in the tank and the right to perform certain ceremonies round the peepu...
K.C. Ethirajulu Chettiar Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad152; (1933)64MLJ119
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Lower Court has held that the decree is invalid for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, and Mr. Venkatarama Sastri contends that this view is wrong. It is unnecessary to consider this point on account of the opinion we have formed on another question that has been raised.2. A few facts bearing on that question may be stated. The appellant filed a suit (C.S. No. 164 of 1931) in the High Court on its Original Side for the recovery of a certain sum of money. That suit was compromised by the defendant agreeing to pay a certain specified amount, which was declared to constitute a charge on some immoveable property. It was also stipulated that in default of payment of the sum the property itself should be sold. In pursuance of this compromise a decree was passed, which after stating that the immoveable property set forth in the schedule thereto should be security for the payment of the amount mentioned went on to provide that in default o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›