Chennai Court May 1934 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.
A. Ramaswami Naidu Vs. Meera Muhaideen Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad610; 151Ind.Cas.621
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, who sued to recover money due on a promissory note. The finding of the trial Court was that the pro-note was not genuine. That finding has been upheld by the lower Appellate Court.2. This litigation was started in 1927 and there was an attempt to settle the matter by reference to arbitration through Court. A member of the Bar--The Government Pleader, I believe--was appointed Arbitrator and recorded the evidence of certain witnesses on oath who were examined and cross-examined by Counsel. A full record was made of the evidence given by the witnesses. The depositions were read out to the witnesses and have been signed by them in token of the correctness. When the arbitration proceedings came to an end, the suit by the consent of the parties was taken up at the stage it had reached before the arbitrator. The evidence of the witnesses taken before the arbitrators was read as evidence before the Court and three defence witnesses were examined. When the...
Muthuraman Chetti Vs. V.R.M.R.M. Periannan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad621; 152Ind.Cas.293
1. The question for decision in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is whether Item No. 1 attached by the decree-holder-respondent does not form part of the estate of the late A. P1. A. Palaniappa Chettiar.'2. Periannan Chettiar, the 1st respondent herein, instituted a suit on a hundi drawn by Palaniappa Chettiar, the deceased father of the 2nd defendant the appellant before us and obtained a decree in O.S. No. 86 of 1931. This decree, was to recover the decreed amount 'from the 2nd defendant's share in the family properties if any and also from the separate assets if any of his father in his hands.' In execution of this decree Item No. 1 in the list of properties filed in E.P. No. 87 of 1932 was sought to be attached by the appellant as property belonging to the late Palaniappa Chettiar. The 2nd defendant-appellant objects to the attachment on the ground that this item, which is an amount of money, is not liable to be attached in execution of the decree as it does not belong to the late P...
Shanmugam Sundaram Chettiar Vs. A.A. Rangarama Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.703
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the present appeal. The 1st defendant was the President of a Company called 'The Dhanday udhapani Co., Ltd.' and the 2nd defendant was its Managing Director. The plaintiffs case was that the 2nd defendant represented to him that the Company was working properly and that on the strength of this and of the prospectus Ex. A he induced him to take shares to the value of Rs. 1,000. The share certificate, Ex. B has been signed by the President. It was found afterwards that the Company was not working and that the representations with respect to it in Ex. A were fake. The plaintiff sued for the return of his money.2. The 2nd defendant, who is said to have become bankrupt, remained ex parte. The trial Court stated that the plaintiff was proceeding against the 1st defendant on two grounds, (1) for his having, along with the 2nd defendant, received the money and for having made misrepresentations as to the affairs of the Company and (ii) for...
Kulandavelu Pillai, President Veeravanallur Panchayat Board and anr. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.261
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case the question when an application has been made for reinstatement under Section 56(4) of the Local Boards Act, the applicant can afterwards apply under Section 57 of the Act to the District Judge to restore him does not strictly speaking arise for the reasons that the application to the Board was made subject to the applicant's right of proceeding under Section 57. Exhibit 1 should be treated as the respondent's application to the Board as the other application was on record. Even otherwise, I am not satisfied that the exercise by the respondent of his right under Section 56, Clause (4) would take away his right of applying to, the Court under Section 57 of the Act. There is no provision in the Act to show that the rights are alternative and not concurrent. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs....
Mangala Lakshmappa Vs. Pathala Musud Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad700; 152Ind.Cas.683
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit was filed upon an insufficiently stamped promissory note. The question that was chiefly debated in the lower Courts was, whether or not the plaintiff could fall back upon the original cause of action; but on account of the turn the case has taken, that question becomes immaterial. The learned District Munsif, being of the opinion that in any event the promissory note could be relied on as containing an acknowledgment of liability, allowed the note to be filed in evidence and on the strength of it, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. That decree of the District Munsif has been set aside by the lower Appellate Court.2. Mr. Mtarama Rao, for the plaintiff (appellant) contends that the document having been once admitted in evidence, the original defect no longer operates as a hindrance. Section 36 of the Indian Scamp Act provides:Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such iustrument shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.M.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad557; 152Ind.Cas.43
Beasley, C.J.1. The question referred is: 'Whether the ex-partner's share of the loss in the cotton trade which the petitioner had to bear by reason of the ex-partner being unable to meet his share of loss in the partnership business can be set off against the petitioner's other income, profits or gains as a loss of profits or gains within the meaning of Section 24 of the Act.' The petitioner is the sole owner of a money lending business at Perambalur and he was the capitalist partner in partnership with one Somasundaram Pillai in a cotton business, the petitioner's share in that business being five-eighths and Somasundaram Pillai's share being three-eighths. The cotton business did not prosper and at the end of March 1930, after which it did no further business, Somasundaram Pillai was shown to be a debtor to that business in a certain sum of money, the amount of indebtedness being ascertained on 31st March 1930. Subsequent to that, Somasundaram Pillai being a man of straw, the assess...
Suppan Asari Vs. Alima Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad587; 155Ind.Cas.17
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was to set aside an order dismissing a claim petition. The defendants were the decree-holders. They obtained a decree in O.S. No. 204 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Coimbatore and attached the properties of the judgment-debtor Pachianna Pannadi. The plaintiff then preferred his claim under a sale deed Ex. A dated 13th May 1925 from Pachianna Pannadi. This sale was after the decree but about two months before the date of the attachment. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit but its decree was reversed in the lower appellate Court which however gave the plaintiff a charge with regard to a certain mortgage Ex. C, which it held that he had discharged. Against this decree the present second appeal is filed.2. The trial Court found that the land purchased comprised the whole property of the judgment-debtor. The purchase price was Rs. 3,500. It is not contended that this was an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Cricket Club
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad670
Beasley, C.J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether an assessee who takes on long lease a parcel of land from Government and erects buildings thereon with their permission and is entitled under the term of the said lease to remove the buildings within a stipulated period on the termination of the said lease is not assessable in respect of the annual value of the buildings under Section 9 of the Act.2. The facts may be stated quite shortly. The Madras Cricket Club or rather its predecessor, because the present Madras Cricket Club has now become incorporated, came into occupation of its present ground by a Government order in 1865, and the title to remain there rested on that order until 1925 when they got themselves incorporated and at the same time took the land upon a long lease from Government. In the lease there is a provision for permitting the removal of the buildings erected upon the land by the assessees at the expiration or upon the termination of the lease. The assessees ar...
Krishna Ayyar Vs. Subbalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad724; 153Ind.Cas.94
Curgenven, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Trichinopoly, dismissing an application by the appellant for the custody of a lunatic, who is his natural son. The proceeding arose in a petition by the lunatic's wife to have him declared a lunatic and herself appointed guardian of the person and property. This application was closed by an order passed by agreement between the parties according to which the wife was to be the guardian of the property and the father, the present appellant, guardian of the person. It appears that a difficulty arose in carrying out the terms of this order, so that the appellant had to institute this application for getting custody of the lunatic.2. The first question that has been raised before us is whether the order dismissing his application for custody is an appeasable order. Orders passed by a Court in lunacy outside the Presidency Towns are provided for by Chap. 5, Lunacy Act, and Section 83, the last section in that chapt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›