Chennai Court November 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.
Akshayalingam Pillai Vs. Avyambalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad386; (1933)64MLJ536
Venkatasubba Rao, J. 1. An important question has been raised as to the right of a defendant after judgment in a suit for specific performance.2. The facts which gave rise to the application made in the Lower Court, so far as they are relevant to the present purpose, may be briefly stated. The plaintiff-purchaser obtained in O.S. No. 70 of 1923 (that was the suit in which the application was made) a decree for specific performance of the contract referred to in the pleadings, to sell immoveable property. The 1st defendant was the vendor under the contract, and defendants 7, 8 and 13 are alienees of different portions of the property from the 1st defendant with notice of the contract. On the 31st March, 1926, the following decree was made by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Mayavaram:1. That the plaintiff do deposit in Court within six months from this date Rs. 5,500 with interest at 11 annas per cent. per mensem from 17th December, 1913, to date of deposit.2. That on deposit the 1st de...
N.P. Subbiah Pillai Vs. M. Nellayappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad366; (1933)65MLJ334
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The District Munsif was wrong in refusing to issue a commission on the mere ground that the distance to Trivandrum where the witnesses reside is less than 200 miles from the Court. Trivandrum is a foreign territory. The rule applies to distances in British India. I am not aware of any law by which witnesses in Native States which have made arrangements for mutual service of processes with British India can be compelled to obey these processes, i.e., punished if they fail to do so. The arrangement for mutual service of processes is made in pursuance of Section 29 and Order 5, Rule 26, Civil Procedure Code. Though such processes may be served as if they had been issued by territorial Courts, the effect of non-compliance is a different matter. If, therefore, the Trivandrum witnesses refused to attend on service of summons, the only way to take their evidence, if necessary, was by commission. It appears from the reply affidavit that the witnesses were summoned to ap...
Narayanaswamy Padayachi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad461
ORDERBurn, J.1. The objection that the trial was barred under the first proviso to Section 188, Criminal P.C., for want of the certificate of the Political Agent for Karaikal appears to me to be sound. As against the accused 1 (petitioner in Criminal R.C.No. 600 of 1932) there was evidence that he was seen near the place from which the buffalo was stolen (in British territory). If the learned Sub-Magistrate had held that his possession in French territory afforded a ground for presuming that he had committed the theft in British territory, Section 188, proviso 1 would have had no application. But the learned Sub-Magistrate convicted both the accused merely for dishonest retention, and the only evidence of retention was of retention in French territory. This is I think precisely one of the cases which Prov. 1, Section 188, Criminal P.C., was intended to meet. The trial was therefore without jurisdiction. I set aside the conviction and sentences and direct that the bail bonds executed by...
In Re: Narayanaswamy Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1932
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.190
ORDERBurn, J.1. The objection that the trial was barred under the first proviso to Section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, for want of the certificate of the Political Agent for Karaikal appears to me to be sound. As against the 1st accused (petitioner in Cr. R.C. No. 600. of 1932) there was evidence that he was seen near the place from which the buffalo was stolen (in British territory) If the learned Sub-Magistrate had held that his possession, in French territory afforded a ground for presuming that he had committed the theft, in British territory, Section 188 proviso 1 would have had no application. But the learned Sub-Magistrate convicted both the accused merely for dishonest retention and the only evidence of retention was of retention in French territory. This is, I think precisely one of the cases which provisional to Section 188, Criminal Procedure Code was intended to meet.2. The trial was, therefore, without jurisdiction. I set aside the conviction and sentences and direct tha...
Chittoori Chinnammi Vs. Immanni Venkayamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad407; (1933)64MLJ449
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. Both these appeals are from the same order and raise the same question, namely, the validity of the registration of a document, Exhibit I, dated the 17th of March, 1921, purporting to be a relinquishment by the plaintiff and 1st defendant, the two elder sisters, in favour of the 2nd defendant, the youngest sister, of a mortgage right taken in the names of all the three. The question arose in a partition suit brought by the plaintiff against her two sisters of their father's property. It is not relevant to this appeal to mention the other disputes in that suit. It is sufficient to say that the appeal to the lower appellate Court was brought by the plaintiff concerning two points, the first relating to the question whether she was entitled to the benefit of a legacy given to her under her father's will which the defendants said had been redeemed by a subsequent gift. This was decided by both the Lower Courts against the plaintiff. The other point in dispute in app...
The Pioneer Mutual Benefit and Friend-in-need Society, Ltd. Vs. the As ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad129; (1932)63MLJ917
Stone, J.1. In this matter I reserved judgment in order carefully to consider whether the new scheme fell within Wallingford v. Mutual Society (1880) 5 A.C. 685. I had and have no doubt about the other points raised.2. The first question is whether the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies has power to decline registration of any part of (a) a memorandum, or (b) articles of a public company. It is said that in Section 82 (relating to the registration of special and extraordinary resolutions) the words in Sub-section (1) 'who shall record the same' are directory and leave the Registrar no option in the matter. But the same may be said of the duties of the Registrar under Section 22 with regard to the registration of the memorandum and articles yet there can be no doubt that the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies has a discretion to refuse to register a memorandum. As Lord Parker observed in Bowman v. Secular Society, Ltd (1917) A.C. 406:The Registrar fulfils a quasi-judicial func...
Kottamasu Venkataratnam Vs. Polisetty Butchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ204
Reilly, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has not thought it necessary to try this suit in full. He dismissed it as a result of his finding on issue 5, which he took up as a preliminary issue. That issue is:Whether the suit document is a promissory note under the Stamp Act as contended by the defendants 3 and 4 and is inadmissible in evidence.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the document is a promissory note, and, as it has not been stamped, he has found it inadmissible in evidence. He has therefore dismissed the suit.3. Plaintiff 2 has appealed, contending that the document on which the Plaintiffs sued is not a promissory note. The crucial part of the document appears to me to be contained in two sentences: 'We shall pay to you the said sum together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from this date as soon as you settled the High Court affair. If it shall be ordered by the Court that the aforesaid amount should be deposited in Court, we shall de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›