Chennai Court February 1933 Judgments
Munisami Goundan Vs. Kutti Mooppan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ311
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The suit out of which this petition arises was for Rs. 200, balance of principal and interest under a promissory note, dated the 27th May, 1918, executed by the 1st defendant, the father of defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. There are three endorsements on the promissory note, dated the 21st May, 1921, 1st July, 1922 and 5th December, 1924, made by the 1st defendant. These endorsements are relied upon by the plaintiff as saving the suit from the bar of limitation. The 1st defendant did not defend the suit and the 2nd and 4th defendants raised the plea that the family had become divided twenty years ago. If they had succeeded in showing that division twenty years ago, clearly no question would have arisen as regards their liability because the promissory note would have been executed by 1st defendant after that division. The learned District Munsif has found that at any rate by 1922 the defendants had become divided and although he does not find the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Gopalaswami Chettiar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad748; (1933)65MLJ518
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, now appellant, sued to recover a sum of Rs. 6,300 from the Government in the following circumstances. In 1913 he started the Salem knitting factory and remained its proprietor until March, 1923, when he sold it to the Salem Industrials. The factory produced cotton banians and it is not disputed that its products were liable to duty under the Cotton Duties Act, II of 1896. Although the duty was payable monthly, no steps were taken to collect it until February, 1923, when the Revenue Divisional Officer called upon the plaintiff to submit a return showing the quantity and value of goods produced in the factory up to 31st December, 1922, so that the duty might be assessed and levied. The plaintiff did not answer this reference, and a further demand was made on 5th April, 1923. This also met with no response and on 11th July the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders assessing the goods produced at the factory from its establishment up to the end of 1922 at ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Section Gopalasami Chettiar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.917
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, now appellant, sued to recover a sum of Rs. 6,300 from the Government in the following circumstances. In 1913, he started the Salem Knitting Factory and remained its proprietor until March 1923, when he sold it to the Salem Industrials. The factory produced cotton banians and it is not disputed that its products were liable to duty under the Cotton Duties Act, II of 1896. Although the duty was payable monthly, no steps were taken to collect it until February 1923, when the Revenue Divisional Officer called upon the plaintiff to submit a return showing the quantity and value of goods produced in the factory up to December 31, 1922, so that the duty might be assessed and levied. The plaintiff did not answer this reference, and a further demand was made on April 5, 1923. This also met with no response and on July 11, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders assessing the goods produced at the factory from its establishment up to the end of 1922 at Rs. 6,...
Tag this Judgment!Munisawmi Goundan Vs. Kutti Moopan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad708; 145Ind.Cas.404
Beasley, C.J.1. The suit out of which this petition arises was for Rs. 200 balance of principal and interest under a promissory note dated May 27, 1918, executed by the first defendant, the father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit. There are three endorsements on the promissory note dated May 21, 1921, July 1, 1922, and December 5, 1924, made by the first defendant. These endorsements are relied upon by the plaintiff as saving the suit from the bar of limitation. The first defendant did not defend the suit and the second and fourth defendants raised the plea that the family had become divided twenty years ago. If they had succeeded in showing that division twenty years ago, clearly no question would have arisen as regards their liability because the promissory note would have been executed by first defendant after that division. The learned District Munsif has found that at any rate by 1922 the defendants had become divided and although he does not find the exact date of the divisi...
Tag this Judgment!Eramullan Kunhi MoidIn and anr. Vs. Kunhi Koman Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad691; 145Ind.Cas.1011; (1933)65MLJ342
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The suit out of which this matter arises, namely, O.S. No. 32 of 1920 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, was a suit instituted by the Karnavan of a tavazhi seeking a declaration that the suit scheduled properties were the joint family properties of the tavazhi and not the private properties of the 2nd defendant. There was also a claim for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 and 30 and 31 or their men from cutting or removing trees on the plaint properties or from interfering in any way with the plaintiff's management of them. The 1st defendant in the suit had leased the properties to the 2nd defendant who sub-leased them to defendants 30 and 31, the appellants here, who were thus in possession of the properties, cutting and removing the trees on them. Pending the disposal of the suit, the plaintiff applied for a temporary injunction against defendants 1 and 2 and the appellants. The plaintiff, in view of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sakala Rattam and ors. Vs. Pulikonda Musalayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad565
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution and the sole question for determination is whether the execution petition is barred by limitation. The decree was passed on 6th October 1920, and the petition was filed on 18th March 1926. Ordinarily therefore the petition would be barred by limitation, but the appellant relies on the inclusion of the decree debt by the judgment-debtor in his insolvency petition dated 22nd October 1921, and his statement to the Official Receivers on 13th February 1924, wherein also this debt is mentioned. The inclusion of the decree debt in the insolvency petition which has to be signed by the insolvent amounts to an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19, Lim. Act: vide Kissendoss v. Khatau Makanjee Spinning, Weaving Co. Ltd. (1916) 36 IC 389, and Ex. D-l, the true copy of the petition signed by the pleader, was admitted in evidence without any objection. The original petition must have been signed by the debtor and hi...
Tag this Judgment!(Sanitary Inspector) Municipal Council Vs. Rajamani Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad416
Burn, J.1. The petition must fail. Bye law No. 1 is badly drafted. It does not prohibit anyone from doing anything. It enjoins thatpremises used for hotels, lodging houses, boarding houses, choultries, rest houses, restaurants, eating houses, cafes, refreshment rooms, or coffee houses or to which the public are admitted for the consumption of any food or drink shall be constructed of masonry or of such other durable materials, as may be approved by the Chairman and no part thereof shall be constructed of inflammable materials;but it fails to say that anyone who uses for hotels, etc., any premises not so constructed will be liable to any penalty. Moreover, the bye-law certainly does not authorize the Municipal Chairman to issue to anyone any notices of any kind, nor does it say that failure to obey a notice is punishable. The acquittal was correct and this petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Estate Collector of Sivaganga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad597
Walsh, J.1. The matter is one of limitation arising in execution of a decree. There was a decree obtained against the appellant by the Sivaganga Estate on 7th June 1920. In execution of the decree the estate after arresting the appellant collected Rs. 682-5-6 on 29th October 1920. The appellant appealed and on 13th November 1923 the decree in execution of which money had been collected was reversed. The decree-holder then deposited a certain amount in Court and on 21st October 1924, intimation was given by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the appellant that the money had been deposited. The appellant received it on 31st October 1924 and on 9th July 1927, filed the present petition claiming interest by way of restitution on the amount during the time it was in the hands of the other side until the amount was paid to him by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not presented within three years from the date of the...
Tag this Judgment!Annavi Pillai Vs. Machammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad595
Walsh, J.1. Defendant 3 in the suit is the appellant in this matter arising in execution. On 1st May 1900 there was a mortgage of item 1 to defendant 3 and on 25th March 1901 there was a mortgage of items 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff 1. Defendant 3 brought a suit, O.S. No. 219 of 1904, on his mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed on 13th June 1904 and the final decree was passed on 12th April 1905. In this suit he impleaded the 2nd mortgagee, the present plaintiff 1. The property was put up for sale on 5th August 1905 but there were no bidders. Defendant 3 bought the property by private sale from the mortgagor for Rs. 799. This was less than the decree amount and satisfaction for the sum was entered in E.P. No. 28 of 1928. Plaintiff 1, the 2nd mortgagee brought O.S. No. 317 of 1914 on his mortgage impleading the prior mortgagee, the present appellant, as defendant 3. He obtained a decree for sale of both the items. The decree directed that item 2 should be sold first and that ite...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad438; (1933)64MLJ692
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The question in this case is whether the execution petition which was filed on 24th June, 1927, is barred by limitation. The previous application was on 23rd February, 1924. To save limitation the decree-holder relies upon the batta paid on 2nd July, 1924, for the auction sale of the property. The question is whether the payment of batta is a step-in-aid of execution. Both the Courts have held in favour of the decree-holder and against that decision this second appeal is filed.2. The following is an extract of the batta memo:-Further memo filed on behalf of the plaintiff.-------------------------------------------------------------------Particulars of the Against Residence Batta. Remarks.Process whom.-------------------------------------------------------------------Rs. A. P.Sale warrant. Immovable Dt. Munsif's Property, Court, 1 0 0Vellore.-------------------------------------------------------------------3. There appear to have been four cases in this High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »