Chennai Court September 1932 Judgments
In Re: Pendyala Narasanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad147; 140Ind.Cas.773
ORDERBurn, J.1. The conviction under Section 4, Molestation Ordinance (5 of 1932), is not maintainable. As Mr. K.S. Jayarama Ayyar for the petitioners contends, the gist of an offence of molestation, as defined in Section 3(a) of the Ordinance is the doing of certain acts,with a view to cause a person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a right to do or to abstain from doing....2. Those words govern the whole of Section 3(a). In this case there is no evidence) whatever, to show that the complainant had a right even to prepare the faces of the toddy trees for tapping. The trees did not belong to him and he has nowhere said that he had got the permission of the owners to tap them. On the other hand, there is positive evidence that the complainant was committing an offence under Section 55, Madras Abkari Act. He had not obtained a license to tap the trees; he had not even got the trees marked. Yet he was having the trees tapped, as is clear from the evidence...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Madura Hindu Permanent Fund, Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad347; (1933)64MLJ260
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) has arisen out of an assessment to income-tax of the profits of the Madura Hindu Permanent Fund, Limited. This Fund was incorporated as a limited company in 1894 under the Indian Companies Act (VI of 1882). Its Memorandum of Association shows that the objects of the Fund are:(a) to enable persons to save money;(b) to invest their savings in landed property and Government promissory notes;(c) to secure loans at favourable rates of interest and to grant loans on sound securities; to grant loans to societies registered under the Cooperative Credit Societies Act; and(d) to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.2. The nominal capital of the Fund at its inception was stated to be Rs. 2,99,964 divided into 3,571 shares of Rs. 84 each to be paid in monthly instalments of one rupee. This was...
Tag this Judgment!N.R.M.M.M. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad185; (1933)64MLJ382
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 2nd respondent in O.P. No. 29 of 1925 is the appellant. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an application filed by the Official Receiver for a declaration that a mortgage deed, dated 9th March, 1922, executed by the 1st respondent, the insolvent, in I. P. No. 26 of 1922, in favour of the appellant, one of his creditors, is void as against him both under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The application was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin. His decision was set aside in appeal by the learned District Judge of Tinnevelly. He held that the transaction in question is bad under both Sections 53 and 54 of the Act. The present second appeal is against that decision of the learned District Judge.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent, the Official Receiver, that no second appeal lies in this case. This objection is accepted by the learned Counsel for the appellant; but he argues that the decision...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.K. Panduranga Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad123; 140Ind.Cas.767; (1932)63MLJ906
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner was the first accused in the case tried by the learned 4th Presidency Magistrate, Madras. The case against him was that at 4 A.M. on the 5th April, 1932, he instigated the 2nd accused to paint on the surface of the road the words ' Boycott British goods'. In consequence of his abetment, and in his presence, accused 2 painted the word ' Boycott' on the road, and then was arrested by a Head Constable of the C.I.D. He has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIV of 1908) and under Section 18(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), and has been sentenced for each offence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, the sentences to run concurrently.2. It is contended in the first place that on the facts found the petitioner could only have been found guilty of abetment of the offences if any committed by the second accused. He was not charged with abetment, but with ...
Tag this Judgment!A.V.R.M.S.P.S. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. M. Paramasivan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad447
Pandalai, J.1. This is an appeal against the appointment in a suit on a simple mortgage of a receiver of the rents and profits of property covered by the mortgage at the instance of the plaintiff mortgagee. The appellant is defendant 3 who is in possession as purchaser before suit of the mortgaged and other property of the mortgagors (defendants 1 and 2), part of the consideration (Rs. 24,500) being the mortgage debt which he undertook in the sale deed to pay but has not paid. The mortgage debt amounted on 29th September 1930, the date of the preliminary decree, to nearly Rs. 37,000. The property consists of a compound and 20 houses in Tuticorin yielding a gross annual rental of Rs. 2,316 and a net income of about Rs. 1,300. The application for receiver was made on 14th August 1931. I am informed that the final decree was passed in May 1932 pending this appeal.2. The chief ground on which the receiver was applied for and granted was that having regard to the great fall in the value of ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasireddi Ramayya and ors. Vs. Mulugu Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad276; (1933)64MLJ75
Mockett, J.1. The decree sought to be executed is dated 16th February, 1914. The Petitioners (Appellants) petitioned to execute it against Defendants 4, 18 and 42 (Respondents 1, 2 and 3) in respect of mesne profits and for possession of a plot of land.2. The decree was joint and several against all the defendants.3. The defendants appealed to the High Court against the above decree and the appeal was dismissed on 29th March, 1916. On 18th January, 1917, the High Court reviewed the decree at the instance of Defendants 19, 21 and 22 and limited their liability to certain items. The Respondents were not made parties to the review application.4. In the present execution petition the appellants give the 'date of decree' as 'Date of amended Decree 18th January, 1917'. They now appeal against the order in execution in so far as the learned Subordinate Judge has held that subsequent profits for the years 1910 to 1919 are not recoverable in execution as no final decree has been passed in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumara Sthapathiar Vs. Sivanarayana Pillai (Deceased) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad158; (1933)64MLJ66
Jackson, J.1. The facts are set forth in the judgment under appeal and need not be re-stated in detail.2. The defendant is alienee from a brother in a Hindu joint family and by virtue of the alienation defendant got into possession of a certain parcel of land. The rest of the joint family property was dissipated, and then plaintiff, the other brother, sued for partition of this parcel. The District Munsif dismissed his suit. The Subordinate Judge decreed him a moiety. A single Judge of this Court again dismissed the suit, and plaintiff appeals under the Letters Patent.3. The parties agree that at the time of the alienation the defendant purchased the right to compel partition of the brother's share as it then stood. The plaintiff reads this as meaning that one-half was purchased, and from the property existing at the time of the partition suit defendant can take that half. The defendant would read into it something more, that he purchased not only the right to the fractional share, but...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Peramanayagam Pillai Vs. Raman Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad104; 140Ind.Cas.774; (1932)63MLJ785
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an application filed by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 38, Civil Procedure Code, to execute the decree in O.S. No. 175 of 1916 (District Munsif's Court, Tinnevelly) by arrest of the appellant. The question for decision is whether the decree sought to be executed is barred by limitation.2. The date of the decree is 11th December, 1917. The application for execution previous to the present application (Exhibit E) was made on the 12th April, 1922. That was in time when it was filed. The present application E.P. No. 257 of 1926 was made on the 21st April, 1926. Prima facie it is barred by limitaton as having been1' made more than three years from the date of the last application. But the respondent decree-holder contended that it was saved from the bar of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act by an acknowledgment made by the judgment-debtor within three years f...
Tag this Judgment!Chella Rangappa Vs. Yerravenkatagiri Rangappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad9; 140Ind.Cas.461; (1932)63MLJ778
1. In this O.P. No. 19 of 1928 the petitioner, a creditor of the estate of the 2nd respondent (insolvent), seeks to set aside a sale to the 1st respondent of certain properties. The 3rd respondent is the Official Receiver of Anantapur. The petition is stated to be under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and paragraph 4 alleges that the sale was 'in fraud of other creditors'. This same sale was the subject of O. P. No. 13 of 1924 filed by the Official. Receiver, now the 3rd respondent. Thai; petition was stated to be under Sections 4, 54 and 56, Provincial Insolvency Act and prayed that ' the execution sale in favour of the 1st counter-petitioner (now the 1st respondent) be set aside as fraudulent and preferred'.2. The third issue in that O.P. was 'whether the sale amounts to a fraudulent preference... 'and the fourth issue 'whether in any event the sale can be set aside under Section 4, Insolvency Act'.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that on the facts there was no fraudu...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sri Rathnamala Pattamahadevi, Zamindarini Vs. the Ryots of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1932
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ423
ORDERRamesam, J.1. These are two applications for the issue of writs of certiorari in respect of certain proceedings of the Board of Revenue under Chap. XI of the Madras Estates Land Act. In C.M.P. No. 6459 the petitioner is the Zamindarini of Mandasa in the Ganjam District. In C.M.P. No. 5155 the petitioner is the Zamindar of Seitur in the Ramnad District. Connected with the latter petition are C.M.Ps. Nos. 2310 of 1931 and 2074 of 1932 in which the petitioners are different sets of tenants in the Zamindari of Seitur. In all the petitions the first important point that arises for decision is whether a writ can be issued in respect of proceedings passed by the Board of Revenue under Chap. XI of the Madras Estates Land Act.2. The Zamindarini of Mandasa had previously filed C.R.P. No. 192 of 1926 to the High Court in connection with the same matter. At the time when the revision petition was filed, that is, on 17th December, 1925, there was a decision of Devadoss and Waller, JJ., which h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »