Chennai Court August 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.
Pilavil Illath Sankaran Nambi and ors. Vs. Pilavil Illath Nangeeli Amm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1062; 161Ind.Cas.682
Wadsworth, J.1. This Appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiffs claiming as the reversioners and heirs to the property of one Kesavan Nambi after the death of his widow, Kunjiri. The matter came up once before the High Court in C.M.A. No. 283 of 1926 and it was then decided that a clause in the will of Kesavan Nambi, where by provision was made that on the death of Kunjiri her rights should go to certain persons now represented by the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, referred only to the contingency of Kunjiri dying before the testator and was not intended to affect the devolution of the property in case of Kunjiri's death after the death of the testator. Strengthened by this decision, the plaintiffs as the nearest reversioners and heirs of Kesavan Nami and Siridhanam heirs of Kunjiri claim to succeed to the properties. After the decision of C.M.A. No. 283, the Court of first instance took up the suit and decided it adversely to the plaintiffs on the ground of estoppe...
J. Mciver and H. Hadow of Huson Tod and Co. Vs. K.V. Al. Rm. Alagappa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad27
ORDERMockett, J.1. This is a petition to adjudicate as insolvents Mr. J. McIver and Mr. H. Hadow, who carry on business as partners under the name of Huson, Tod & Co. Stockbrokers, in Madras. The petition alleges that the debtors owed the petitioner on 25th May of this year Rs. 1,32,915-10-11, of which a payment of Rs. 33,338-11-9 had been made leaving on the date of the petition a balance of Rs. 99,686-12-2 due. It is convenient to state at this stage that it is not denied by the debtors that this amount is due to the petitioner. The acts of bankruptcy upon which the petition is laid are three in number. Para. 11 of the petition alleges a preferential payment in favour of Mr. J. W. Macfarlane of Rs. 4,062 on 3rd May 1935, and a similar preferential payment of Rs. 24,986 to Mr. W. H. Warren on 9th May 1935. With regard to this latter payment it was stated from the Bar by Mr. Grant that it was paid to Mr. Warren not in his personal capacity, but as the representative of a missionary tru...
Doraswamy Iyer Vs. Arunachala Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad135
ORDERCornish, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit in which the trustees of a temple sought to recover a contribution promised by a subscriber to a subscription list for the repairs of a temple It appears upon the facts found in the lower Court that the plaintiffs- the present respondents-the trustees entered into a contract for the necessary repairs in the month of February 1928, and the maistry of the contractor was supplied with money from village common funds. As the work proceeded more money was required, and to raise this money subscriptions were invited and a subscription list raised. This was in October. The present petitioner put himself down in the list for Rs. 125, and it is to recover this sum that the suit was filed. The lower Court has decreed the suit. The plaint founds the consideration for this promise as follows : That plaintiffs relying on the promise of the subscriber incurred liabilities in repairing the temple. The question is, does this amount t...
Doraswamy Ayyar Vs. Arunachala Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.345
Cronish, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of a suit in which the trustees of a temple sought to recover a contribution promised by a subscriber to a subscription list for the repairs of a temple. 2. It appears upon the facts found m the lower Court that the plaintiffs--the present respondents--the trustees-entered into a contract for the necessary repairs in the month of February 1928, and the maistry of the contractor was supplied with money from the village common fund. As the work proceeded more money was required, and to raise this money subscriptions were invited and a subscription list opened. This was in October. The present petitioner put himself down in the list for Rs. 125, and it is to recover this sum that the suit was filed. The lower Court has decreed the suit. The plaint founds the consideration for this promise as follows: That plaintiffs relying on the promise of the subscriber incurred liabilities in repairing the temple. The question is, does this amount ...
In Re: Mahalinga Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ783
ORDERK.S. Menon, J.1. This is an application to set aside the order of the District Judge of Madura confirming that of the District Munsif of Tirumangalam, laying a complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 467 and 114 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 193 Indian Penal Code.2. A suit was brought on a promissory note the genuineness of which was denied by the defendant. The names of the petitioners appear therein as attesting witnesses and they gave evidence in support of that promissory note.3. The Court found the promissory note to be not genuine and has laid a complaint against the plaintiff, the petitioners and two others, who swore in support of an earlier promissory note. The learned District Judge upheld the order in respect of the plaintiff and the petitioners, and allowed the appeal of the other two persons.4. The question is, whether a complaint, in the circumstances, is competent against the petitioners in respect of offences punishable under Sectio...
Somasundaram Chetti Vs. Chidambaram Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.636
Venkatramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the plaint site and building alleging that the said building was built by his ancestors for the purpose of affording shelter to pious men amongst Nattukottai Chetties as well as for keeping certain things which are usually taken on the occasion of the procession of a local God, that he is the hereditary trustee, and that defendant is in wrongful possession of the said property. The defendant claims title to the property in his own right though he admits that the building was intended by his ancestors for being used by sadhus and that he is the trustee. The plaintiff valued the plaint site and matam under Section 7, Clause (v) of the Court Fees Act, at Rs. 1,000. The defendant objected to the valuation on the ground that the property was worth Rs. 7,000. An issue, was raised whether the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court. The learned District Munsif appointed a Commissioner to valu...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. J. Mciver and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.656; (1935)69MLJ681
Madhavan Nair, J.1. One Rao Bahadur Soora Lakshmiah Chetty by his agent Gopalaswamy Chetty instituted a complaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras against J. Mclver the senior partner of Messrs. Huson Tod & Co. a firm of stock-brokers Madras as first accused, and K.S. Narasimhachari, one of the assistants of the said firm as the second accused, charging them with offences punishable : under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code--'Criminal breach of trust' and 'cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property'. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused; and this appeal has been filed by the Government against the order of acquittal.2. The complaint alleged that in or about November 1934 Messrs. Huson Tod & Co., purchased for and delivered to the complainant 6 1/2 per cent. 1935 Bombay Development Loan Bonds of the value of Rs. 3,50,000 receiving full payment therefor, that in or about the last week of March 1935 the second accused represented to...
Emperor Vs. J. Mciver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad1
Madhavan Nair, J.1. One Rao Bahadur Soora Lakshmiah Chetty, by his agent Gopalaswamy Chetty, instituted a complaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, against J. McIver, the senior partner of Messrs. Huson Tod & Co., a firm of stock brokers, Madras, as accused 1, and K.S. Narasimhachari, one of the assistants of the said firm as accused 2, charging them with offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code,-'criminal breach of trust' and 'cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property'. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused; and this appeal has been filed by the Government against the order of acquittal.2. The complaint alleged that in or about November 1934 Messrs. Huson Tod & Co. purchased for and delivered to the complainant 61/2 per cent 1935 Bombay Development Loan Bonds of the value of Rs. 3,50,000, receiving full payment therefore, that in or about the last week of March 1935 accused 2 represented to him that his firm...
K.V. Jagannatha Rao Vs. the Maharajah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1046; 158Ind.Cas.709; (1935)69MLJ534
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an application by a judgment-debtor, in respect of whose property a receiver has been appointed in execution, praying that the receiver might be directed to pay the petitioner a certain sum of money for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to conduct his appeal to the Privy Council. The application has been made to this Court because a similar application to the Government Agent at Cocanada was dismissed on 15th February, 1935, on the ground that the learned Agent could not vary an order passed by his predecessor on 23rd August, 1932, and that the application should be made to the High Court. Whatever difficulties of procedure there may be as to whether the present application is to be regarded as an application to this Court as the authority which continued the receiver or as one necessitated by the agent's order dated 15th February, 1935, we think that in the interests of justice we may, while dismissing this petition, point out to the learned Agent that...
In Re: Medapati Rama Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ763
ORDERK.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 55(b), 55(g) and 58 of the Madras Abkari Act I of 1886. Both the lower Courts have, on a consideration of the entire evidence, found that the petitioners unlawfully manufactured some arrack and were in possession of the same and I am not prepared to say that the finding is wrong. But, as the case is that the arrack found in the possession of the petitioners was manufactured by themselves, the first question is whether they can be convicted separately under Section 55(b) and Section 55(g) of the Act. If it was they who manufactured it, they must naturally be in possession of materials, utensils, apparatus, etc., for the purpose of manufacturing it. The offence of manufacturing it, namely, the one comprised in Section 55(b) therefore includes the offence relating to possession of the apparatus, etc., namely that comprised in Section 55(g). There cannot, therefore, be a conviction under Section 55(b), as well as unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »