Chennai Court September 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.
P.P.P. Chidambara Nadar Vs. K.P.C. Mahalinga Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad321
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, Offg. C.J.1. The questions raised relate to the passing of the receiver's accounts before an order is made for his discharge. The accounts to be passed are for the period from 11th February 1923 to 20th July 1931. The first objection relates to the sum of Rs. 6,700 odd, the interest claimed by the receiver on the advances made by himself. The lower Court has disallowed the item in toto on the ground that before advancing the money, the receiver has not obtained the previous sanction of the Court. The law imposes a certain penalty when the receiver chooses to advance his own money without first obtaining the Court's permission, but it does not follow that the penalty extends to the disallowance of the interest. Jessel, M. R., points out in Ex parte Izard, In re Bushell (1883) 23 Ch D 75, that if a receiver chooses to advance money of his own without the previous authority of the Court, he can only look to the estate for indemnity. The practice in the Chancery Divi...
Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1935
Reported in: 160Ind.Cas.410; (1935)69MLJ776
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, Offg. C.J.1. It is unnecessary to decide what the true nature of the order made by Sir Vepa Ramesam, the learned Officiating Justice is - whether it is judicial or administrative or quasi judicial. The order having been made without notice, whatever the nature of that order may be, the party who feels aggrieved, we think, has a right to apply that the order be reconsidered. Both under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and Section 24 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, the High Court has power to withdraw a suit from a Subordinate Court and try and dispose of the action itself. Section 24 of the Code provides that such an order may be made by the High Court of its own motion without notice to the parties and at any stage of the suit; Clause 13 of the Letters Patent says that for purposes of justice the High Court may remove a suit from a Subordinate Court and try and dispose of it as a Court of Extraordinary Original Jurisdiction. It is significant, though we base n...
Chalatan Narayani and anr. Vs. Ponmalari Koroth Krishnan Nambiar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad128
King, J.1. The subject matter of this appeal is a plot of land measuring 3.38 acres granted by Government to the plaintiff in 1920, plaintiff's ease being that after he had enjoyed the land for a year or two it was trespassed upon by the tenants of defendant l2 the karnavan of the Chirakkal Kovilagam. The land according to plaintiff and the Government (impleaded as defendant 10) was originally part of the bed of the Varom river in North Malabar, and came into existence as land as the result of an exceptionally high flood season in 1907. When plaintiff filed his suit to recover possession of the land in 1925 it was contested by defendant 12 mainly on the ground that it never formed part of the river bed, but was a part of defendant 12's property on the bank of the river. The District Munsif of Cannanore found against this plea and decreed plaintiff's suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry remanded the suit for fresh disposal, after framing five additional issues relating t...
(Maramittathi theruvil Motha Chettiam) Veettil Kelu Vs. Kuttiyil Machi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad308
Wadsworth, J.1. The main question for decision in the second appeal, which arises out of a suit for redemption of a Malabar usufructuary mortgage (otti) is one of limitation. It is common ground that the suit mortgage was created by one Kelu who was the karnavan of the Mootha Chettiam Veettil tarwad which for the sake of brevity I will hereafter refer to as the M. tarwad. The original mortgagee was one Kuttiasson. He in 1869 assigned the mortgage to another Kelu reciting therein that he has got the consent of Chappan, the heir of the mortgagor Kelu and Karnavan of the M. Tarwad. This Chappan is said to be the predecessor-in-title of defendant 1. In 1871 the assignee of the mortgagee executed Ex. 3 which purports to be a deed of surrender of the mortgage right in favour of defendant 1, and one who is alleged to be his predecessor in the karnavan office. It is to be noted that under Ex. 3, the alleged karnavan of the M. tarwad purports to redeem the mortgage which the plaintiff now seeks...
Dharmana Sooramma Vs. Gangu Narasamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad83; (1935)69MLJ816
Stone, J.1. In my opinion this Civil Revision Petition succeeds. Costs to abide the event. In view of Govindaszvami Pillai v. Municipal Council Kumbakonam I.L.R.(1917) 41 Mad. 620 : 34 M.L.J. 399, I am of the opinion that revision lies here. The learned District Judge has dismissed the pauper application clearly because he regarded it as obvious that the term 'sister' in Act II of 1929 does not include the term 'half sister'. This is a point by no means obvious. It is true that a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has since so held Ram Adhar v. Sudesra I.L.R.(1933) 55 all. 725; but that matter only went before a Full Bench because it was regarded as a point of difficulty. There are English decisions which point in the contrary direction. But whether in the result it appears that this is the correct conclusion or not, it is not in my opinion a conclusion so obvious that it should be made the sole ground for throwing out the pauper petition.2. Before me another ground has been taken ...
In Re: Dani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad317
ORDERMenon, J.1. The petitioners were charged by the police, under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, with criminal conspiracy for cheating the public at large. The charge was so understood by the Joint Magistrate also as his order shows. The question is whether, when, as in this ease, the conspiracy was entered into in Bombay where the accused lived, the Joint Magistrate of Pollachi has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. All that is urged in support of the view that he has, is that one or two acts of cheating were done within his jurisdiction. In my view this is insufficient to confer jurisdiction to try the charge of criminal conspiracy. Conspiracy was complete when the parties entered into such an agreement; and does not depend on the subsequent act of cheating. As the allegation is that it was in Bombay, where the accused reside that they entered into the conspiracy, the charge should have been laid there. The lower Court cannot be clothed with jurisdiction to try th...
Basudeva Doss Vs. Sree Sree Sree Chandra Chudamani Raja Harischand Jag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad126; 159Ind.Cas.1092; (1935)69MLJ917
Stone, J.1. These second appeals raise a point of some difficulty, namely, whether fees charged over and above the rent for the cost of collecting rent and not shown in the record of rights or in any patta either issued by the landlord or by the land settlement officer can be deemed to be 'rent ' within the extended meaning of that term as defined in Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act. If it is not, then such fee cannot be recovered it being struck at by Section 143 of the said act.2. The Sub-Collector has said that:There seems little doubt that this is a customary and established payment.3. The District Judge has adopted that statement. It is said that that is a finding of fact that should not be disturbed in second appeal.4. The Sub-Collector relying on points of law derived from Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act has disallowed this part of the claim. The District Judge has allowed it.5. The Principal question arises under Section 3(ii)(a). Section 3(ii) defines 'rent'. Sectio...
The General Corporation Ltd. by Director K.M. Rao Vs. the Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad267; 159Ind.Cas.834
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income Tax Commissioner is:Where an assessee carrying on a mica business is obliged to stop it on account of a cyclone but still incurs expenditure during the year of account with the intention of resuming the same if conditions and prospects proved favourable but the business in fact was never resumed, is the expenditure so incurred allowable as a deduction against the profits and gains of the assessee's other business.2. The facts are these: The assessee is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The company carried on business in motor accessories at Madras, Bombay, Coimbatore and Ootacamund, and in mica mine at Nellore. In this reference before us we are concerned with a sum of Rs. 5,420 which the company claims it is entitled to deduct for expenses incurred in carrying on the mica business. The mining business was started at Nellore in 1926. It was worked till November 1927, when the production was stopped on ac...
Viswanatham Krishtiah Vs. Yarrabanda Pedda Venkata Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ33
1. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 112 of 1932 on the file of the District MunsifFs Court of Kurnool is the appellant before us. He obtained a money decree against respondents 1 to 3. Against the same respondents the fourth respondent before us had obtained a decree in O.S. No. 26 of 1930 on the file of the sub-Court of Kurnool. He applied by E.P. No. 7 of 1932 for attachment of the properties of the judgment-debtors on 26th October, 1932. The sale of the properties was adjourned to 22nd August, 1933. On that date the appellant filed E.P. No. 638 of 1933 in the District Mun-siff's Court for execution of his decree. On the same date he filed an application for rateable distribution, in the District Court of Kurnool. The question was whether he was entitled to rateable distribution. The lower court dismissed his application and this appeal is against that order of dismissal.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies as the dispute in this case relates solely to questions betwe...
Narayanaswamy Naicker and ors. Vs. D. Devaraja Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad316
ORDERStodart, J.1. Sadagopa Naicker, the complainant in Cri. R.C. No. 67 of 1935, not being a candidate in. the election is not bound to obtain the order of the Local Government before he can launch a prosecution against the persons who distributed the pamphlet for defamation in respect of statements made about himself in that pamphlet. It is only in the case of an offence under Section 171-G, I.P.C., that previous sanction is necessary. And the offence defined in that section is the making of a false statement in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate at the election. It does not apply to defamatory statements made about persons who are not candidates. As regards Cri. R.C. No. 62 of 1935, the conditions of Section 171-G are admittedly fulfilled except in one particular. The complainant Devaraja Mudaliar was a candidate at the election. The pamphlet contains statements relating to his personal character and conduct and being published and broadcast two days before...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »