Chennai Court October 1936 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.
Hajee Moosa Sait and Brothers thro' Its managing partner Abdulla Salai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad360; (1937)1MLJ143
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 256-1-6, being the amount due in respect of goods supplied to the first defendant between the 17th December, 1931, and 31st December, 1932. The 2nd defendant was sought to be made liable as surety in virtue of a letter of guarantee executed by him in plaintiff's favour dated 16th December, 1931, which runs thus:Letter of surety regarding supply of goods, 16th December, 1931.Kandramanickam, P.C.P. Madura.Haji Musa Sait and Brothers1st Margali Prajorpathi year(16th December, 1931)Karim writes as follows:Please supply the bearer of this letter Section Shamsuddin Sahib Avergal of Tirupathur, goods in current account 'up to the extent of Rs. 250 (Rupees Two hundred and fifty) and have debit and credit transactions in his name. 'For the said amount I shall be surety for a period of one year. Thereafter I shall not be surety. If any amount be due to you within the afor...
P.P. Koyakutti and ors. Vs. A. Veerankutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad421; (1937)1MLJ407
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question argued in this appeal is whether an application to execute the final decree in a suit on a mortgage is barred by limitation. The relevant dates necessary for its disposal are as follows:Preliminary decree .. 21st July, 1925.Final decree. .. 9th November, 1925.Decree of the appellate Court confirming thepreliminary decree .. 16th March, 1927.Application for execution .. 15th March, 1930.2. The learned District Munsif held following the decision in Somar Singh v. Deonandan Prasad Singh I.L.R.(1927) 6 Pat. 780 that the application was not barred by limitation. But the learned Subordinate Judge following the decision of Madhavan Nair, J., in Ahammad Kutty v. Kottekkat Kuttu (1932) 64 M.L.J. 251 : I.L.R. 56 Mad. 458 held that it was barred. The Article of the Limitation Act applicable to the case is Article 182(2):For the execution of the Three years. (where there has been andecree of a Civil Court appeal) the date of the final decree or order ofthe...
In Re: Universal Mutul Aid and Poor Houses Association, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ10
Gentle, J.1. This is an application by the Managing Official Liquidator in the matter of the Universal Mutual Aid and Poor Houses Association, Limited (in Liquidation) for directions regarding a sum which, I am informed, amounts to Rs. 2,335-2-10 which is part of monies in a suspense account, and the application arises under these circumstances. The company in liquidation issued to subscribers donation certificates which were accepted by the subscribers upon the condition endorsed thereon and in the recital, the certificate-holder expressed himself as desirous of doing charity. In the memorandum of association of the company amongst its primary objects was to allocate 30 per cent, at least of the monies coming to them from the certificate-holders towards specified charities; in regard to the remaining 70 per cent, of the monies subscribed, that part was to form a fund from which benefits might from time to time be available to certificate-holders and in respect of which there is no nec...
Koti Viswanatham Vs. Pandiri Satyanandam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad161; (1937)1MLJ147
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the order of Burn, J., refusing leave to the appellant to file his appeal in forma pauperis. The facts, so far as they are relevant, may be shortly stated. The suit related to certain logs of timber, which the plaintiff claimed by virtue of an agreement with the first set of defendants. The fifth defendant was the rival claimant, who alleged that the logs belonged to him and had been transferred to the sixth defendant. The lower Court negatived the claim of the fifth and sixth defendants and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The applicant before Burn, J., was the fifth defendant, who applied for leave to file the appeal in forma pauperis. Pending the action, the logs were sold and the sale proceeds were brought into Court and the fifth defendant, reciting that some monies were due from him to the sixth, transferred to him such interest as he possessed in the proceeds. The point to note is that the transfer was not made with refere...
In Re: the Universal Mutual Aid and Poor Houses Association, Limited, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad368; 169Ind.Cas.522
Gentle, J.1. This is an application by the Managing Official Liquidator in the matter of the Universal Mutual Aid and Poor Houses Association, Ltd. in liquidation for directions regarding a sum which, I am informed, amounts to Rs. 2,335 2-10 which is part of monies in a suspense account, and the application arises under these circumstances. The Company in liquidation issued to subscribers donation certificates which were accepted by the subscriber, upon the condition endorsed thereon and in the recital, the certificate bolder expressed himself as desirous of doing charity. In the memorandum of association of the company amongst its primary objects was to allocate Rs. 30 per cent, at least of the monies coming to them from the certificate-holders towards specified charities: in regard to the remaining 70 per cent, of the monies subscribed, that part was to form a fund from which benefits might from time to time be available to certificate-holders and in respect of which there is no nece...
Kannathazha Pakram and ors. Vs. Manathil Eacharattil Krishnan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.346
Burn, J.1. There is little that I can find to add to the judgment of the learned District Munsif and the judgment of tie learned District Judge in this case. The points taken to behalf of the appellant, are the same as were taken by him in both the lower Courts.2. The third point depends upon the definition of 'Kanam' in Section 3 (L) of the Malabar Tenancy Act. In that definition it is stated that the 5th incident of the transfer described as kanam is the liability of the transferee to pay the renewal fee to the transferor if the transferee is permitted to enjoy the said property for a further period after the termination of the original period. In the present case the renewal fee calculated according to the provisions of the Act comes to less than nothing, and the contention is, therefore, that the transferee is not liable to pay any renewal fee at all and consequently there is no kanam. This is not a contention which I can accept. It would make the document a kanam at one time and n...
Manickam Chetty Vs. Kamalam Alias Kamalathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ95
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit has been brought on the allegation that the plaintiff's deceased husband and the first-defendant became divided and that the plaintiff is therefore entitled to her husband's share. It is also alleged that subsequent to the division the two brothers carried on business in partnership and the plaintiff on that footing claims an account of the partnership business. These mainly are the reliefs that the plaintiff has prayed for and the learned Subordinate Judge has found on these two points that the plaintiff's claim has been made out.2. The facts may be briefly stated. There were three brothers: Annamalai, Arunachala, the plaintiff's husband and Manicka, the first defendant. They entered into a partition arrangement embodied in Ex. A, which covers 40 pages in print : That is a very elaborate document and the items allotted to each of the three individuals have been set out in great detail. Hence lands, outstandings, jewels, and all descriptions of property ...
Ambalanattath Pareri Balaram Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad797
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The petitioner here filed a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council to recover Rs. 155-11-3. The facts which were undisputed were that on 24th July 1933 the petitioner sent through the Post Office, Tellicherry, a money order for Rs. 150 to the address of the Director, Royal Institute of Technology, Delhi. This money order was No. 3609. Having sent off the money order, the petitioner, fearing that the Institute was not a bona fide one, wished to stop payment of the money order and on 27th July 1933 requested the Post Master Tellicherry to send an express telegram to the Delhi Post Office to stop payment of the money order to the addressee and towards the expenses remitted Rs. 3-6-0. The Post Master, Tellicherry, accordingly sent an urgent telegram to the Delhi Post Office and there is no question at all as regards its receipt at Delhi. In spite of this however the Delhi Post Office paid the money over to the payee on 29th July 1933.2. The petitioner...
Manickam Chetti Vs. Kamalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad335; 171Ind.Cas.178
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit has been brought on the allegation that the plaintiffs deceased husband and the 1st defendant became divided and that the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to her husband's share. It is also alleged that subsequent to the division the two brothers carried on business in partnership and the plaintiff on that footing claims an account of the partnership business. These mainly are the reliefs that the plaintiff has prayed for and the learned Subordinate Judge has found on these two points that tee plaintiff's claim has been made out.2. The facts may be briefly stated. There were three brothers: Annamalai, Arunachala, the plaintiffs husband and Manicka, the 1st defendant. They entered into a partition arrangement embodied in Ex. A, which covers 40 pages in print: That is a very elaborate document and the items allotted to each of the three individuals have been set out in great detail. Hence lands, outstandings, jewels, and all descriptions of property have ...
P. Sivasuryanarayana Chetty Alias Alleyya, Minor by Next Friend Sesham ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad110; 166Ind.Cas.339; (1937)1MLJ8
M. Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal was directed to be posted before a Bench of three Judges, as it was thought it would become necessary to examine conflicting decisions on the points raised.2. The facts have been fully and lucidly set out by Mr. Ramappa in his judgment and we shall therefore refer only to such of them as have an immediate bearing on the questions at issue. There were three brothers Audinarayana, Venkatasubbayya and Subbaroya. Venkatasubbayya died in 1926 and his minor son is the plaintiff. The second defendant is the widow of Subbaroya, who died in 1931. Audinarayana, the surviving brother is the first defendant. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that on the strength of the first defendant's consent, which he attacked as being fraudulent and corrupt, the second defendant proposed to take in adoption, a boy by name Radhakrishna, her brother's son, and the suit was brought for a declaration that the consent was invalid and for an injunction restraining the widow fr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »