Chennai Court October 1933 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.
P.C. Kandaswami Pillai and ors. Vs. Narayana Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1933
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.1134
1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to set aside a sale held in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 20 of 1928. Various objections were raised against the validity of the sale and an enquiry was held under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The alleged material irregularities are set forth in the order of the lower Court. The first point worthy of consideration in this appeal is, whether the proclamation of sale in pursuance of which the properties were sold in Court auction on February 4, 1930, is defective in the sense that the sale held on the strength of such proclamation should be deemed to be invalid. The facts of this case are, that a large number of items put up for sale were the subject of a suit for partition between the 1st defendant and his elder brother (O.S. No. 82 of 1925). Those properties are said to be the estate of their father who became divided and died as a separate owner. In those proper...
N.A. Aiyaswamy Chetty Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1933
Reported in: 151Ind.Cas.14
Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal raises a very interesting question of law which, is not an easy one to decide.2. The facts are that the insolvent was adjudicated an insolvent at Panang on January 9, 1931. Panang is a part of the Straits Settlements. On March 15 of the same year the appellant who is a resident of Ramnad filed a suit against the insolvent in the Sub-Court of Ramnad and obtained an attachment before judgment of his immovable property on July 24, 1931, and a decree on November 28, 1931. On July 19, 1932, he attached in execution the insolvent's immovable property in Ramnad. On October 24, 1931, the insolvent executed a conveyance in Penang of his property in British India including the property under attachment in favour of the Official Assignee in Bankuptcy of Panang. On December 5, 1932, at the request of the Supreme Court of Penang an order was made by this High Court for the Official Assignee of Madras to act as auxiliary to the Official Assignee of Penang and take possess...
P. Venkatachallam, a Business Concern, by Its Receiver Mr. Gompertz Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad70; (1933)65MLJ860
Stone, J.1. This motion is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, commanding him to send forthwith to and before this Court all and singular the orders of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, dated 1st May, 1933, in the matter of issuing a license to the P. Venkatachallam Condiment Factory with all things touching the same etc. The matter has been very fully and fairly argued before me partly on affidavit evidence and partly on oral evidence, and it is agreed quite properly by Mr. Rajamanikkam on behalf of the Corporation that the point in issue shall be finally disposed of to-day rather than limiting my orders to-day to the issue of a writ which would be returnable for argument.2. The question that the proceedings raise is one of very considerable importance, in my opinion, to the business community of Madras. It relates to the powers of the Corporation (conferred by the Madras City Municipal Act) to refuse or cancel the license required ...
M. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. V. Srinivasa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ424
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff sued for the compulsory registration of a document said to have been signed and executed by the 1st defendant on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor sons. This document purports to be a conveyance of a certain property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 800. The document is dated 15th March, 1929. It was presented for registration on 15th July, 1929, i.e., on the last day of the four months allowed for presentation. On 19th July, 1929, the 1st defendant appeared before the Registrar and admitted execution but pleaded that the plaintiff had agreed to execute an agreement to re-sell if the sale amount was re-paid within five years but would accede only to a term of three years. On this the Registrar remarked:As this cannot be considered as urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, I refuse to register the document for non-appearance of the executant within the time prescribed by Section 34.2. This suit was brought to enforce the registration of the...
The South Kanara Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., by Its Secretary G. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1933
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.172; (1934)66MLJ475
1. The decree holder in Claim No. 183 of 1927-28 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore, put in an execution petition praying to recover Rs. 5,407-8-8 by arrest of 2nd defendant and by attachment of his movable and immovable properties. The decree was against Chikumudnur Co-operative Society No. 1759 represented by (1) its President, B. Narasinga Rai, and (2) the said B. Narasinga Rai. The Lower Court refused execution on the ground that the decree is against the Co-operative Society as a corporate body and not against the shareholders or members of the Society in their individual capacity. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.2. The respondent is not represented. The learned Advocate for the appellant quotes Kuppu Govinda Chetty v. Secretary, Co-operative Central Bank, Conjeevaram 1932 M.W.N. 18. That ruling is in his favour though the point was hardly discussed and seems almost to have been considered as incontrovertible. He has howe...
M. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Srinivasa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad113
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff sued for the compulsory registration of a document said to have been signed and executed by defendant 1 on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor sons. This document purports to be a conveyance of a certain property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 800. The document is dated 15th March 1929. It was presented for registration on 15th July 1929, i.e., on the last day of the four months allowed for presentation. On 19th July 1929 defendant 1 appeared before the Registrar and admitted execution but pleaded that the plaintiff had agreed to execute an agreement to resell if the sale amount was repaid within five years but would accede only to a term of three years. On this the Registrar remarked:As this cannot be considered as urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, I refuse to register the document for non-appearance of the executant within the time prescribed by Section 34.2. This suit was brought to enforce the registration of the document. For some reason ...
Kamarasu Ramachandra Rao Vs. Simhadri Rathayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ178
ORDER1. This is an appeal arising out of an application for the passing of a final decree in a mortgage suit under Rule 5 of Order 34, Civil Procedure Code. The Lower Court allowed this application, and passed final decree accordingly. The order stands in the place of the judgment and the decree drawn up in pursuance of it is the final decree contemplated in the aforesaid rule. That being so, the present appeal must be deemed to be one against the final decree so passed. In such an appeal, we think, it is open to the appellant to raise the contention that the final decree should not have been passed. But Mr. Appa Rao argues, that he is entitled to file an appeal against an order directing the drawing up of a final decree, as if such an order has been passed in this case. Even so, he must be able to show such an order is appealable. This is not an order against which an appeal is provided by Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor does such an order amount to a decree, within the m...
The Malabar Forests and Rubber Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad266; (1934)66MLJ418
1. The money in question had come into the custody of the Court. So no question of territorial jurisdiction arose so far as the execution of the decree transferred to it by the Principal Sub-Court, Calicut, was concerned. The transfer was clearly made under Section 39(d) of the Civil Procedure Code and the Additional Subordinate Judge has refused to execute it on two grounds:(1) that the order of transferring Court does not mention why the decree is transferred to it for execution and hence the order of transfer is ultra vires.(2) that his Court has no territorial jurisdiction and can only hear suits and appeals transferred to it by the District Judge and petitions connected therewith. As regards the first ground the transferee Court cannot question the power of the transferring Court to order the transfer. Vide Paira Mai v. Mehr Chand A.I.R. 1930 Lah. 143. In point of fact the reason for the transfer was perfectly obvious even if it was not stated in so many words in the order.(2) As ...
Ratnammal Vs. Govindaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad44
1 This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Salem appointing Govindaswamy Mudaliar (the natural father of the minor) as the guardian for his person and property (only houses and lands). The appellant is the adoptive mother of the minor boy who is now aged about 10 years. The District Judge has taken into consideration the facts alleged on both sides, and without making an elaborate inquiry he has thought fit to appoint the natural father as guardian in preference to the adoptive mother. It is true, that from the standpoint of Hindu law, the adoptive mother has a preferential right to the guardianship. But the welfare of the minor, especially in choosing a guardian for his person, is of paramount importance, and this will be a matter which must weigh largely with the Court. Since the death of the adoptive father of the minor, there have been, quarrels between the petitioner and the C respondent, and the feelings between them are very much strained. In this state of ci...
Rathnammal Vs. Govindaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.724
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Salem appointing Govindaswamy Mudaliar(the natural father of the minor) as the guardian for his person and property (only houses and lands) The appellant is the adoptive mother of the minor boy who is now aged about 10 years. The District Judge has taken into consideration the facts alleged on both sides, and without making an elaborate inquiry he has thought fit to appoint the natural father as guardian in preference to the adoptive mother. It is true, that from the standpoint of Hindu Law, the adoptive mother has a preferential right to the guardianship. But the welfare of the minor especially in choosing a guardian for his person, is of paramount importance, and this will be a matter which must weigh largely with the court. Since the death of the adoptive father of the minor, there have been quarrels between the petitioner and the respondent, and the feelings between them are very much strained. In this state of circums...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »