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.
Dr. S. Muniswami Naidu and ors. Vs. G. Thandavaraya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad5
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decree directing certain accounts to be taken and awarding to the plaintiff one-third share of the profits which on such taking of accounts may be ascertained to have been earned in connexion with a certain venture. About the end of 1924, a contract was taken in the name of defendant 1 for the construction of a portion of the Shoranur-Nilambur Railway. The defendant 2 is defendant 1's son-in-law and was, at the time the contract was taken, employed in the service of the railway company itself. It was the plaintiff's case that on account of this circumstance the contract was taken in defendant 1's name but it was intended for defendant 2's benefit. Defendant 2 denied this, but the lower Court has upheld the plaintiff's contention on this point. This finding has not been assailed before us. Having taken this contract for the construction of the railway line, it is the plaintiff's case that defendants 1 and 2 availed themse...
S.V.P.N. Chidambara Nadar Vs. M. Vadivel Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad47; 159Ind.Cas.1031
ORDERStodart, J.1. Defendant agreed on 20th June 1930 to buy a certain ascertained quantity of tobacco weighing 56 thulams at Rs. 2-1-0 and to take delivery in a week. He took and paid for only 16 thulams. In January 1933 plaintiff gave him notice of re-sale and it is plaintiff's case that he sold the balance of the tobacco which had greatly depreciated in value, for Rs. 13-2-0 as compared with the contract price of Rs. 82-3-0. Plaintiff filed this suit for the balance due deducting only the small sum aforesaid. The lower Court held that he was bound to give defendant credit for the price of the tobacco at the date of breach; that if he wished to re-sell he was bound to do so within a reasonable time and not to wait until the goods owing to natural causes and to fall in prices had lost practically all their value. Plaintiff now applies to have this finding revised on the ground that he was entitled to recover the unpaid price of the goods. Respondent's answer is that having availed him...
In Re: Medapate Rama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.40
ORDERK.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 55(b) and 55(g) and 58 of the Madras Abkari Act, I of 1886. But 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 Sections 55(b) and 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 under Secti...
Dr. S. Munisami Naidu and ors. Vs. G. Thandvaraya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.1005
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decree directing certain accounts to be taken and awarding to the plaintiff one-third share of the profits which on such taking of accounts may be ascertained to have been earned in connection with a certain venture.2. About the end of 1924, a contract was taken in the name of the first defendant for the construction of a portion of the Shoranur-Nilambur Railway. The second defendant is the first defendant's son-in-law and was at the time the contract was taken, employed in the service of the Railway Company itself. It was the plaintiff's case that on account of this circumstance the contract was taken in the first defendant's name but it was intended for the second defendant's benefit. The second defendant denied this, but the lower Court has upheld the plaintiff's contention on this point. This finding has not been assailed before us.3. Having taken this contract for the construction of the railway line, it is the plaintiff's case that...
N. Pl. Ct. Muthia Chettiar Vs. Minor Ramamoorthi by His Guardian the H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1072; (1935)69MLJ841
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by a mortgagee who sued to enforce two mortgages of February 1919. The contesting respondents are purchasers of the mortgaged property. On the 4th March 1927 they deposited in Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act a sum of Rs. 10,000 and odd representing the amount due on the two mortgage bonds if interest should be calculated at 12 per cent, per annum simple interest, from date of default in payment of interest as per terms of the bonds. But the mortgagee claimed that he was entitled as per terms of the bond to compound interest at 12 per cent, per annum from the date of default. This difference between the parties made the proceeding under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act infructuous, as the mortgagee was not prepared to take the deposit amount in full discharge of his claim. Hence the present suit.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the provision for payment of compound interest at 12 per cent, per annum fro...
Abdul Razack Sahib Vs. Kilpatti Co-operative Society by President Kris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad150; 160Ind.Cas.520; (1936)70MLJ31
Cronish, J.1. The appellant is a member of the Kilpatti Co-operative Society. The Society obtained a 'decision' against him in the court of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. This procedure took place by virtue of the rules made by Government under powers of Section 43(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The decision was sent to the Tahsildar for enforcement. This was in accordance with Rule 14(5) of the Statutory Rules, which says : - The decision shall be enforced in either of these ways:(a) on a requisition to the Collector of the District or to any person authorised by him in this behalf made by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, all sums recoverable under the decision shall be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.(b) On application to the Civil Court, having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the decision that Court shall enforce the decision as if it were a decree of the Court.2. Admittedly, the Tahsildar was the Officer deputed to a...
N. Pl. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. Minor Ramamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.867
1. This is an appeal by a mortgagee who sued to enforce two mortgages of February 1929. The contesting respondents are purchasers of the mortgaged property. On March 4, 1927, they deposited in Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act a sum of Rs. 10,001 and odd representing the amount due on the mortgage bonds if interest should be calculated at 12 per cent, per annum simple interest, from date of default in payment of interest as per terms of the bonds. But the mortgagee claimed that he was entitled as per terms of the bond to compound interest at 12 per cent. per annum from the date of default. This difference between the parties made the proceeding under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act infructuous, as the mortgagee was not prepared to take the deposit amount in full discharge of his claim, Hence the present suit.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the provision for payment of compound interests at 12 per cent, per annum from date of default is pen...
Appadurai Nainar Vs. Sampath Rao Nainar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ812
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application to quash the commitment of accused 2 to 4 in P.R.C. No. 13 of 1934 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate's Court, Wandiwash in the following circumstances.2. A suit on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the complainant in the case was instituted against him before a Panchayat Court by the first accused. The writer of the promissory note is accused 2 and accused 3 and 4 are the attestors. For the purpose of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition it may be taken that the suit was dismissed by the Panchayat Court on the ground that the promissory note was a forgery. Subsequent to its dismissal, a complaint with respect to an offence under Section 467, Indian Penal Code (forgery of a valuable security) was filed against the plaintiff in the case who is the first accused, and accused 2, 3 and 4 who are as already stated the writer and the attestors of the promissory note. On a preliminary objection on behalf of the first acc...
In Re: Magalam Govinda Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad134; 160Ind.Cas.1036
ORDER1. This petition arises out of S. A. No. 66 of 1933 which was dismissed by our learned brother, Madhavan Nair, J. After the dismissal of the second appeal, the petitioner applied to the learned Judge, by C. M. P. No. 76 of 1935, for leave to file an appeal under the Letters Patent and he dismissed it stating that he could not find any ground for granting the leave asked for. Another petition asking for review of this order was also dismissed by him. The petition before us asks that we may grant leave to appeal against the judgment of Madhavan Nair, J., in second appeal, 'despite his Lordship's refusal to grant leave' in C. M. P. No. 76 of 1935. In the course of the argument before us the petitioner has suggested that this may at least be treated as an appeal against the order refusing to grant leave. We do not see that on either ground we can grant the petitioner's request.2. The petitioner who himself argued his case before us admits that a decision of a Division Bench of this Co...
Cherukuri Lakshminarasu and ors. Vs. Cherukuri Nagamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1053
Wadsworth, J.1. This case is really the aftermath of a previous suit which ended in an abortive attempt at arbitration. The original action (O.S. No. 59 of 1926, on the file of the District Munsif of Ongole) was brought by presumptive reversioners for a declaration of their rights in properties in the possession of a widow and a minor. One of the questions arising in that suit was the genuineness of a will. The decision of that question apparently involved certain disclosures which are alleged to have been likely to embarrass the karnam of the village. As a result of this anticipated embarrassment, the village officers engineered a compromise. It is found as a fact by the lower Court that there was a definite agreement as to the terms of this compromise, and that the parties decided that it would be best to have this compromise embodied in the award of an arbitrator on a reference by the Court. Consequently, an application for reference to arbitration, which is Ex. A in the present pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »