Chennai Court October 1935 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.
Arunachala Moopanar Vs. Valli Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.612; (1936)70MLJ449
Wadsworth, J.1. This Second Appeal raises questions under the Indian Oaths Act. The plaintiff who is the appellant agreed to accept the oath of the first defendant as conclusive of the matter in issue and the agreement was that the parties should appear before a certain temple, that the-plaintiff should light camphor and the defendant should extinguish it while taking the required oath. The agreement did not stipulate the time or the date of the oath, which were left to be fixed by the Court. The Court, accordingly, issued a warrant to a commissioner appointing him to take the oath from the first defendant in the presence of the plaintiff between the hours 8 and 11 A.M. on the 17th March, 1933. The parties and the commissioner duly appeared at the temple as required, but the commissioner's report shows that just as the first defendant was about to take the oath the partisans of both sides told the plaintiff and the first defendant that they should abide by the decision of panchayatdars...
Subramania Aiyar and anr. Vs. Venkatarama Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ733
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order made by the District Court of East Tanjore in an appeal under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The petitioners here stood surely under a composition scheme in I.P. No. 10 of 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court of Tiruvarur. The debt due by the first respondent in this revision petition is shown as item No. 16-o in the composition schedule. The foot-note to that schedule indicates that the terms on which that particular debt was to be included in that schedule were finally settled only when the scheme came before the Court for approval, because in respect of that debt there was a litigation pending at the time in O.S. No. 256 of 1931 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Tiruvarur, for a declaration that the promissory note on foot of which that amount was claimed to be due had been discharged. The Court therefore took care to indicate that this item would be payable under the scheme of composition 'only if the credi...
(Vedavyasa) Alasinga Bhattar and ors. Vs. (Vedavyasa) Venkatasudarsana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad294
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. One Vedavyasa Bhattar was a Dharmakartha of the Srirangam temple and the right of his family to a place in the Dharmakarthaship is still reserved in the scheme framed by the High Court in Sitharama Chetty v. S. Subramanya Ayyar 1917 39 Mad 700 . He had also certain mirasi offices in the temple with emoluments and perquisites attached to them. In 1870 the office of the Dharmakartha and certain mirasi offices were held by three descendants of the said Vedavyasa Bhattar, viz. (1) Sri Venkata Bhattar, (2) Venkatasudarsana Bhattar and (3) Thatha Bhattar, who then constituted an undivided Hindu family. Owing to dissensions in the family in 1870 they became divided in -status and later effected a partition of their properties including the mirasi offices in a certain manner. Ex. 3 dated 1st January 1876 which evidences the division provides, so far as the Dharmakarthaship is concerned, enjoyment by turns by the three members in rotation each for one year. The actual ar...
Arunachala Moopanar Vs. Walli Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad406
Wadsworth, J.1. This second appeal raises questions under the Indian Oaths Act, The plaintiff who is the appellant agreed to accept the oath of defendant 1 as conclusive of the matter in issue and the agreement was that the parties should appear before a certain temple, that the plaintiff should light camphor and the defendant should extinguish it while taking the required oath. The agreement did not stipulate the time or the date of the oath, which were left to be fixed by the Court. The Court accordingly issued a warrant to a commissioner appointing him to take the oath from defendant 1 in the presence of the plaintiff between the hours of 8 and 11 a.m. on 17th March 1933. The parties and the Commissioner duly appeared at the temple as required but the Commissioner's report shows that just as defendant 1 was about to take the oath the partisans of both sides told the plaintiff and defendant 1 that they should abide by the decision of panchayatdars and accordingly a panchayat went on,...
Subramania Ayyar Vs. Supparaya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad424
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order made by the District Court of East Tanjore in an appeal under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The petitioners here stood surety under a composition scheme in 1. P. No 10 of 1931 on the tile of the Sub-Court of Tiruvarur. The debt due by respondent in this revision petition is shown as item 16-A in the composition schedule. The foot-note to that schedule indicates that the terms on which that particular debt was to be included in that schedule were finally settled only when the scheme came before the Court for approval, because in respect of that debt there was a litigation pending at the time in O.S. No. 256 of 1931 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Tiruvarur, for a declaration that the promissory, note on foot of which that amount was claimed to be due had been discharged. The-Court therefore took care to indicate that this item would be payable under the scheme of composition 'only if the creditor is fin...
Subramania Ayyar and anr. Vs. Venkatrama Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.717
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order made by the District Court of East Tanjore in an appeal under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The petitioners here stood surety under a composition scheme in I.P. No. 10 of 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court of Tiruvarur. The debt due by the 1st respondent in this revision petition is shown as item No. 16-a in the composition schedule. The footnote to that schedule indicates that the terms on which that particular debt was to be included in that schedule were finally settled only when the scheme came before the Court for approval, because in respect of that debt there was a litigation pending at the time in O.S. No. 256 of 1931 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Tiruvarur, for a declaration that the promissory note on foot of which that amount was claimed to be due had been discharged. The Court, therefore, took care to indicate that this item would be payable under the scheme of composition 'only if the credito...
Atmakuru Butchayya Chetty Vs. Chakram Krishnamachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad152; 160Ind.Cas.534; (1936)70MLJ20
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is a petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, to set aside the decree of the District Munsif of Berhampore in Small Cause Suit No. 1197 of 1930. The plaintiff filed Small Cause Suit No. 542 of 1929 against one Seshayya. During the pendency of that suit he applied for attachment of a sum of Rs. 130 out of Rs. 300 alleged to belong to that Seshayya and to be in deposit with the defendant. As the defendant did not appear, the attachment was made absolute. (Exs. B and B-1). After the decree was passed in the said suit, the plaintiff filed Execution Petition No. 501 of 1930, requesting the Court to send for the amount in the hands of the defendant already attached before judgment and to pay the same to him. In spite of the fact that there was already an attachment before judgment, the Court made another order of attachment. When notice was served on the defendant-garnishee, he filed a counter-statement (Ex. F) denying that he had any amount b...
K.R.M.T.T. Thyagaraja Chettiar Vs. the Collector of Madura
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ343
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Collector of Madura taken in regard to the realisation of the arrears of income-tax levied on the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was assessed to income-tax for the years 1931-32, 1932-33 and 1933-1934 in the sum of Rs. 5,610-2-0 7,503-5-0 and 8,333-6-0 respectively totalling Rs. 21,746-13-0. The notices of demand for the several years were respectively issued on the 31st January 1932, 31st January 1933 and 16th November, 1933. After assessment, proceedings under Section 46 of the Income-tax Act were commenced and certificates as required by the said section were issued. In March, 1935 the Revenue Divisional Officer issued an order for arrest of the petitioner for the said arrears and the petitioner was arrested on the 26th March 1935, when he gave 22 post dated cheques commencing from 1st April 1935 to 6th September 1935 and he was thereafter rele...
K.R.M.T.T. Thyagaraja Chettiar Vs. Collector of Madura
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad398
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Collector of Madura taken in regard to the realisation of the arrears of income-tax levied on the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was assessed to income-tax for the years 1931-32, 1932-33 and 1933-34, in the sum of Rs. 5,610-2-0, Rs. 7,503-5-0 and Rs. 8,333-6-0, respectively totalling Rs. 21,746-13-0. The notices of demand for the several years were respectively issued on 31st January 1932, 31st January 1933 and 16th November 1933. After assessment, proceedings under Section 46, Income-tax Act were commenced and certificates as required by the said section were issued. In March 1935 the Revenue Divisional Officer issued an order for arrest of the petitioner for the said arrears and the petitioner was arrested on 26th March 1935, when he gave 22 post-dated cheques commencing from 1-4-1935 to 6-9-1935 and he was thereafter released and then two of th...
K. Sangappa Vs. Sunku Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad561; 163Ind.Cas.814
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Anantapur dated 11th July 1935 declaring that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 497 of 1934 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Penukonda was duly elected President of the Bukkapatnam Panchayat Board and issuing an injunction restraining the defendant from acting as the temporary President of the said Board and from interfering with the plaintiff's right as President. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the sole ground that the oath of allegiance had been taken by the members who had assembled at the meeting for electing a President not before the President of the meeting was chosen by them, but only afterwards. It is common ground that before the actual business of the meeting, that is to say the election of the President of the Board was proceeded with, the oaths of allegiance had been taken, and the objection was only to the selection or choice of the President for the meeting itself before it p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »