Chennai Court December 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.
K.V.Al.Rm. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. the Official Assignee and J. Mciver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ563
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal is from an order of the learned Judge sitting in Insolvency. It raises a short point which does not appear to have been the subject of any reported decision, although there is an obiter dictum by Wright, J., reported in In re Charlwood (1894) 1 Manson 42 . The point at the time it is taken before us is one that is to a large extent academic, for it concerns the power of the Court to order the payment of sums out of the estate of the insolvent in the hands of the Official Assignee for the defence of the insolvent against a criminal charge. The reason why, at the time the point is urged before us it is academic is that in fact the payments have been made, the inquiry in respect of which the legal expenses were incurred is over and it is not suggested that there is any possible means of recovering the sums spent away should we come to the conclusion that the learned Judge was wrong in passing the order that he did. This position could easily have been avoid...
D.K. Mohammad Ehiya Sahib Vs. R.M.P.V.M. Valliappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.2246; (1936)70MLJ708
Stone, J.1. In this appeal the first defendant is the appellant. There is also a Memorandum of Cross Objections filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The suit, O.S. No. 8 of 1930, in the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad, Madura, was upon a security bond in favour of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura, registered on the 22nd February, 1923. The appeal is against the decree of the trial Court making the first defendant liable to pay into Court the sum of Rs. 17,367-14-7. The other defendants are concerned as interested in the property charged with the payment of a sum which may become liable, on a final deeree being passed, to be sold should default be made in the payment of the aforesaid sum. The decree thus is a preliminary decree for the payment of a sum of money by a certain time, and the preliminary decree will be followed by a final decree for sale of the charged property if the sum is not paid. The appellant in this appeal urges that his liability is nothing. The cross-objec...
K.V. Al. Rm. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Official Assignee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad414
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This appeal is from an order of the learned Judge sitting in insolvency. It raises a short point which does not appear to have been the subject of any reported decision, although: there is an obiter dictum by Wright, J., reported in In re Charlwood (1894) 1 Manson 42 at p. 44. The point at the time it is taken before us is one that is to a large extent academic, for it concerns the power of the Court to order the payment of sums out of the estate of the insolvent in the hands of the Official Assignee for the defence of the insolvent against a criminal charge. The reason why at the time the point is urged before us it is academic is that in fact the payments have been made, the inquiry in respect of which the legal expenses were incurred is over and it is not suggested that there is any possible means of recovering the sums spent away should we come to the conclusion that the learned Judge was wrong in passing the order that he did. This position could easily have b...
K.V. Al. Rm. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. the Official Assignee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.947
1. This appeal is from an order of the learned Judge sitting in insolvency. It raised a short point which does not appear to have been the subject of any reported decision, although there is an obiter dictum by Wright, J. reported in Charlwood In re Masters Ex parte (1885) 15 Q B D 616 : 53 L T 767 : 2 Morr. 255. The point at the time it is taken before us is one that is to a large extent academic, for it concerns the power of the Court to order the payment of sums out of the estate of the insolvent in the hands ox the Official Assignee for the defence of the insolvent against a criminal charge. The reason why at the time the point is urged before us it is academic is mat in fact the payments have been made, the inquiry in respect of which the legal expenses were incurred, is over and it is not suggested that there is any possible means of recovering the sums spent away should we come to the conclusion that the learned Judge was wrong in passing the order that he did. This position cou...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.107; (1936)70MLJ404
Varadachariar, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of proceedings taken in the District Court of Anantapur to set aside certain surcharge certificates issued by the Examiner of; Local Fund Accounts against one Sivasankaram Pillai who for some years was the President of the Taluk Board of Penukbnda. The lower court has set aside the surcharge certificate in respect of some of the items complained against but confirmed it so far as certificate Ex. E was concerned. C.R.P. No. 658 has been preferred against this portion of the lower Court's judgment. C.R.P. No. 594 has been filed by the Government and it raises a general question of principle, as to the propriety of impleading the Government as a party to proceedings arising out of surcharge certificates.2. Dealing first with C.R.P. No. 658, the certificate in question was issued in respect of a sum of Rs. 53-12-0 being the diminution of revenue to the Local Board consequent upon the allowance of profession-tax appeals in ten cases. It...
Secy. of State Vs. Sivasankaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad412
Varadachariar, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of proceedings taken in the District Court of Anantapur to set aside certain surcharge certificates issued by the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts against one Sivasankaram Pillai, who for some years was the President of the Taluk Board of Penukonda. The lower Court has sat aside the surcharge certificate in respect of some of the items complained against, but confirmed it so far as certificate Ex. E was concerned. C.R.P. No. 658 has been preferred against this portion of the lower Court's judgment. C.R.P. No. 594 has been filed by the Government and it raises a general question of principle as to the propriety of impleading the Government as a party to proceedings arising out of surcharge certificates.2. Dealing with C.R.P. No. 658, the certificate in question was issued in respect of a sum of Rs 53-12-0 being the diminution of revenue to the Local Board consequent upon the allowance of profession-tax appeals in ten cases. It would ...
Polegar Meghavaranam Naidu and ors. Vs. A.M. Mahommad Mohideen Sahib a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad782
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants are defendant 4 and the legal representative of defendant 3 in a suit for contribution based on a payment, made by the plain-tiffs who own lands in the same holding of which defendants 2 to 4 are pattadars, in order to save the holding from sale for arrears of rent due to defendant 1 the usufructuary mortgagee from the zamindar. The trial Court found most of the issues in favour of the plaintiffs but dismissed the suit on the, ground of nonjoinder of parties. The learned District Judge held that it was possible to give a just decree against defendants 2 to 4 without impleading others who are alleged to be in possession but had not been impleaded and that non-pattadar defendants 5 to 31 were not liable to pay rent to defendant 1 and are therefore not liable to contribute to the plaintiffs and remanded the suit for disposal by the trial Court. The two main arguments in appeal before this Court are: (1) that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties; and (2...
Natesan Chettiar Vs. Mariyayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad526; 163Ind.Cas.809
ORDERStodart, J.1. This petition arises out of an order of the District Munsif of Devakottah refusing to recast an issue in a suit and to add further issues. The suit is on a mortgage executed by defendant 1. Defendant 2 is the minor son of defendant 1. Defendant 3 is a subsequent mortgagee. The bond is not in the possession of the plaintiff; it is with defendant 3 who is the petitioner here and it bears endorsement of payment the last of which is in the handwriting of plaintiff's son (a step son) a man by the name of Ponnia Pillai. The issues as originally framed were:(1) Was the suit bond lost as alleged in para. 5 of the plaint ?(2) Is the discharge pleaded true ?(3) Whether the suit debt is true and binding on defendant 2 ?2. Defendant 3 asked the Court to recast the second issue so as to put the burden on the plaintiff and to add four other issues two of which were : (a) Is the mortgage to defendant 3 true and binding on defendant 2 (b) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff and...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chinta Venkatarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad471; (1936)70MLJ503
King, J.1. These are a number of connected appeals filed by Government against the acquittal of various persons who are alleged to have committed offences under Section 5 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act within the Municipality of Bezwada. The complaints in all the cases were filed during the period May to July, 1934 in the Court of the Second Class Bench of Bezwada. They were subsequently transferred to the Court of the First Class Bench by the joint Magistrate. When they came to be tried by the First Class Bench reference was made on behalf of the defence to Section 19 of the Act which runs as follows:No prosecution under this Act shall be commenced after the expiry of three months after the commission of the offence.2. The First Class Bench held that, as the order transferring the cases to their Court was made more than three months after the commission of the offences, and as the Second Class Bench had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints there was no valid prose...
Kongot Puthen Veethil Ammal Alias Devaki Amma Vs. Nagappan Nair Karnav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ103
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of orders in execution of a decree passed for eviction of a tenant in possession in Malabar, entitled to compensation for improvements under Madras Act I of 1900. The main question in the appeal is one of revaluation with reference to Clause (3) of Section 6 of that Act. The suit was apparently pending for a number of years and the decree, which was passed in 1929 in fixing the amount of compensation due to the tenant accepted a valuation made by a Commissioner in 1926. The tenant was evicted almost immediately after the decree so that there is no question of any accretion in value between the date of the decree and the date of the eviction.2. The argument for the appellant is that because Section 6(3) of the Act refers to the date up to which compensation for improvements has been adjudged in the decree, when no such date is given in the decree, the executing Court is at liberty to go behind the decree and ascertain from the evidence the date on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »