Chennai Court November 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.
C.R. Subbarama Aiyar, Proprietor, the Ganesh Bank Vs. Kizhakke Purakka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ128
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 57 of 1935 was found guilty of cheating with respect to a jewel. He falsely represented to the owner of the jewel that he wanted it for use at a wedding, and upon that representation the complainant gave it to him. The accused, instead of using it for that purpose, pledged it with the petitioner and raised a sum of money on it. The joint Magistrate, after convicting the accused, ordered the jewel to be returned to the complainant. P.W. 5, the present petitioner, appealed to the Sessions Judge of South Malabar, who upheld the order of the Joint Magistrate with respect to the jewel.2. Two questions seem to arise in this petition : (1) Whether the order of the Joint Magistrate was right, and (2) whether, even if it was wrong, this Court should interfere in revision. I have been taken through a number of rulings on the question whether a right to possession accrues to a pledgee where the pledge is taken bona fide; but all that it is necessary to s...
The Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments Vs. P.V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad232; (1937)1MLJ105
Varadachariar, J.1. This is a revision petition asking this Court to revise the order passed by the District Judge of West Tanjore on an application presented to him under Section 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The point raised in the case has been decided by Cornish, J., adversely to the Board, in another case Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board (1933) 40 L.W. 288, as the correctness of that decision was challenged on behalf of the petitioner, this case has been directed to be posted before this Bench for determination of the question.2. The Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1927 defined an 'excepted temple' in certain terms in Clause 5 of Section 9. By an Amending Act of 1930 a new definition has been substituted. Some time in 1927, the temple, to which this application relates, was held by the Board to be an 'excepted temple' within the meaning of the definition as it stood in the Act of 1927. After the Amending Act of 1930 had been passed, the ...
The Secretary to the Board of Revenue (Separate Revenue) Vs. Rm. Pl. N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad308; (1937)1MLJ174
Varadachariar, J.1. The nature of the document with reference to which this reference under Section 57 of the Stamp Act has been, made is briefly described as follows in paragraph 2 of the Board's reference. It is 'an award by arbitrators and purports to direct a partition of two firms (A.L. Rm. of Nattanjan and A.L. Rm. of Kayan in Burma) between the five parties to the deed named therein. Of these five parties, Nos. 1 to 3 are undivided members of a family, No. 4 is their distant and separated coparcener and No. 5 is a stranger. The arbitrators after examining the parties orally and looking into the accounts have assigned by casting lots the A.L. Rm. firm at Nattanjan with all its assets and liabilities to the first group of parties Nos. 1 to 3 and the other firm at Kayan to the parties Nos. 4 and 5'. The document was executed in Burma on a stamp paper of Rs. 5 as a deed of dissolution of partnership. The Collector of Ramnad was of opinion that the document should be stamped as an in...
Perumal Mudaliar Vs. the South Indian Railway Company, Limited, by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad407; (1937)1MLJ341
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is really a comparatively simple case although a great deal has been made of it here, and certainly one part of the case, although it does not affect the matter, give rise to a considerable amount of discussion. With that I will deal later.2. The suit was filed by the petitioner against the South Indian Railway Company claiming a refund of an excess charge levied by the company at Podanur on a consignment of 200 bags of cocoanut oil-cakes and also a charge made for demurrage as well. There was also a claim for interest. The bags were consigned at Rajahmundry on 20th September, 1932, the destination of the consignment being Podanur. The bags arrived at Podanur and on 27th September, 1932, a sum of Rs. 159-14-0 was tendered as freight for the bags by the petitioner to the Railway Company. The company refused to deliver the consignment to the petitioner, unless an excess charge of Rs. 90-8-0 was paid and also a smaller sum of Rs. 7-15-0 for de...
K.M. Venkatachala Chetty Vs. V.D. Natesa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad569; (1937)1MLJ346
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this reference relates to the amount of court-fee payable upon a memorandum of appeal presented against a judgment delivered on the original side of the High Court declaring that a partnership subsisted between the plaintiff and the defendant in an action for dissolution of partnership and referring it to the Official Referee for the taking of the necessary accounts. The provisions which regulate the payment of the court-fee are Rules 35 and 36 of the High Court Fee Rules, 1933. They run thus:35. Memorandum of appeal from a final judgment when the value of the subject-matter of the appeal does not exceed Rs. 2,500...Rs. 225.36. Memorandum of appeal from any other judgment or order...Rs. 100.2. The fee of Rs. 100 was paid by the appellant under Rule 36 and he contends that it is sufficient. The argument of his earned Counsel is, as the matter has been referred to the official referee for accounts, the suit cannot be said to be finall...
S.R. Subrama Ayyar, Proprietor, the Ganesh Bank Vs. Kizakka Purakkal P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.80
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. The accused in C.C. No. 57 of 1335 was found guilty of cheating with respect to a jewel. He falsely represented to the owner of the jewel that he wanted it for use at a wedding, and upon that representation the complainant gave it to him. The accused, instead of using it for that purpose pledged it with the petitioner and raised a sum of money on it. The Joint Magistrate, after convicting the accused, ordered the jewel to be returned to the complainant. Prosecution Witness No. 5 the present petitioner, appealed to the Sessions Judge of South Malaba', who upheld the order of the Joint Magistrate with respect to the jewel.2. Two questions seem to arise in this petition :3. (1) whether the order of the Joint Magistrate was right, and (2) Whether, even if it was wrong, this Court should interfere in revision. I have been taken through a number of rulings on the question whether a right to possession accrues to a pledgee where the pledge is taken bond fide but all that i...
The Secretary to the Board of Revenue (Separate Revenue) Vs. R.M.P.i.N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1936
Reported in: 167Ind.Cas.439
Varadachariar, J.1. The nature of the document with reference to which this reference under Section 57 of the Stamp Act has been made is briefly described as follows in para. 2 of the Board's reference. It isan award, by arbitrators and purports to direct a partition of two firms (A.L. Rm. of Nattanjan and A,L. RM. of Kayan in Burma) between the five parties to the deed named therein. Of these five parties, Nos. 1 to 3 are undivided members of a family, No. 4 is their distant and separated coparcener and No. 5 is a stranger. The arbitrators after examining the parties orally and looking into the accounts have assigned, by casting lots, the A.L. Rm. firm at Nattanjain with all its assets and liabilities to the first group of parties Nos. 1 to 3, and the other firm at Kayan to the parties Nos. 4 and 5.2. The document was executed in Burma on a stamp paper of Rs. 5 as a deed of dissolution of partnership The Collector of Ramnad was of opinion that the document should be stamped as an inst...
Panchayat Board by Its President Vs. T. Pillathian Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad272; (1937)1MLJ101
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 129 of 1936 was prosecuted under Schedule IV, Rule 33 of the Madras Local Boards Act for non-payment of taxes. The Sivaganga Bench Court found that he was liable to pay such assessment as had been demanded of him before the Panchayat Board had increased it, and ordered him to pay at that rate for three years and to pay a fine of five rupees. One amount claimed by the Panchayat Board was disallowed on the ground that it was barred by limitation and another on the ground that as no proper notice had gone to the petitioner, the rent could not be enhanced. In appeal, the order of the Bench Court was confirmed. Two revision petitions have been filed, one by the Sivaganga Panchayat Board regarding the amount disallowed and the other by the accused, in which fee raises a number of technical pleas.2. The pleas raised in Criminal Revision Case No. 129 of 1936 seem to be the same as those raised in the memo, of appeal by the accused...
The Rajah of Vizianagaram Represented by His Next Friend, the Estate C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ91
Varadachariar, J.1. The point arising for decision in these petitions is whether the holder of a pre-settleraent inam in a zamindari can under any, and, if so, what circumstances be dealt with as an 'intermediate landholder' from whom the zamindar can claim to recover the whole or a portion of the cess paid by the zamindar to Government under Section 88 of the Madras Local Boards Act.2. So far as we are able to gather from the materials now before us, the inam to which these petitions relate seems to have been granted long prior to the permanent settlement and in some of the reports filed in the case the purpose of the inam is described as 'Veeti Koluvu'. This expression has not been very much elucidated either by the translation adopted by the District Munsif. We prefer to leave it in the vernacular form so that the matter may be better investigated by the lower Court to which we are remanding these cases. It appears from the evidence-and on that circumstance one of the chief contenti...
Seshan Pattar's Son Ramanadha Aiyar Vs. G.G. Narayanaswamy Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ163
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. In my view, this Civil Revision Petition must be dismissed with costs although that result is reached by coming to a different decision upon the point of limitation to that reached by the learned Subordinate Judge. It seems to have been conceded in the lower Court that the promissory note Ex. B was insufficiently stamped and the suit was not brought upon the promissory note at all. The only use to which it was put at the trial was as an acknowledgment of his debt to remove the bar of limitation which otherwise was obviously in the way of the claim, the amount sued for having been due on the 30th November, 1929, and the suit filed on the 10th March, 1934. The learned trial Judge held that although the note could not be used as a promissory note it could nevertheless be used as an acknowledgment of the defendant's liability for the debt sued upon and he relied upon the decisions in Vancheswara v. Narayana : AIR1933Mad251 and Rakkappan v. Suppiah :...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »