Chennai Court December 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.
R. Ganesa Aiyar Vs. the Lakshmi Co-operative Building Society by Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ511
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 242-4-0 as and for remuneration for the services rendered by him as Secretary of the defendant, The Lakshmi Co-operative Building Society, Limited, for the year 1928-1929 and a portion of the year 1929-1930. The learned Subordinate Judge negatived his claim on the ground that the general body has refused sanction for the payment claimed by him and has therefore no right to sue therefor. It is contended before me that this view is wrong. To appreciate the contention, reference to a few bylaws of the Society is necessary. Under by-law 17 the executive management of the affairs of the Society shall vest in a Board of Directors which shall consist of not more than five members Under by-law 18 the members of the Board of Directors shall be elected by the general body for a period of two years from among the members of the Society. After the Board of Directors is elected they shall...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad548; (1937)1MLJ732
Varadachariar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of water cess which the plaintiff alleges was illegally levied from him. The facts found are that the wet lands of the plaintiff who is a ryotwari holder received water for about 24 hours in August, 1926, through a breach in the channel while the source of irrigation assigned to these lands was a sluice in the channel and that the plaintiff had nothing to do with the breach and was not even aware of it. On these findings of fact, our learned brother Pandrang Row, J., before whom this second appeal came in the first instance followed the judgment of a Division Bench reported in Kanniappa Mudaliar v. Secretary of State for India : AIR1936Mad42 and held that the plaintiff was not liable to be charged water cess. This letters patent appeal was posted before a bench of three Judges as it was represented on behalf of the Government that the decision in Kanniappa Mudaliar v. Secretary of State for India : AIR1936...
R. Ganesa Ayyar Vs. the Lakshmi Co-operative Building Society
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad379; 171Ind.Cas.518
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 242-1-0 as and for remuneration, for the services rendered by him as Secretary of the defendant. The Lakshmi Co-operative Building Society, Limited, for the year 1928-29 and a portion of the year 1929-30. The learned Subordinate Judge negatived his claim on the ground that the general body has refused sanction for the payment claimed by him and has, therefore, no right to sue, therefor. It is contended before me that this view is wrong. To appreciate the contention, reference to a few by-laws of the Society is necessary. Under by-law No. 17 the executive management of the affairs of the Society shall vest in a Board of Directors which shall consist of not more than five members. Under by-law No. 18 the members of the Board of Directors shall be elected by the general body for a period of two years from among the members of the Society. After the Board of Directors is elected,...
In Re: T. Varadarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ396
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, and the questions referred are:(1) Whether the complaint preferred in pursuance of an order passed by the Officiating Chief Justice on an office note is an order passed by the Court within the meaning of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code.(2) Whether the Officiating Chief Justice could pass an order under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, in a case where no orders were passed under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, either by the trial Judge or his successor or the Appellate Bench that decided the Original Side appeal against the judgment and decree in C.S. No. 542 of 1931.(3) Whether the Officiating Chief Justice could be deemed to be the successor to the trial Judge who decided C.S. No. 542 of 1931 in the exercise of Original Civil Jurisdiction.2. The facts are set out in the order of reference, and briefly stated, they are 'that during the trial of C. Section No. 542 of 1931 on the file...
K.V. Sreenivasa Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ442
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. These are petitions presented by two persons, one a member of the Trichinopoly Circle Temple Committee, and the other who is an aspirant for the office of trustee for the Sri Renganathaswami temple in Trichinopoly District, for the issue of writs of certiorari in respect of two orders dated 16th October, 1936, and 3rd November, 1936, respectively, made by the Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras. The first order runs as follows:The Trichinopoly Circle Temple Committee is requested not to fill up the vacancies that may arise on the Board of Trustees of the above temple by efflux of time, pending notification proceedings No. 26 of 1936. The committee is also requested to state the date or dates on which such vacancies are to arise within the period of the next six months.2. The subsequent order runs as follows:In view of the directions in Board's Memo. Notification No. 26 of 1936-4 dated 16th October, 1936, the non-hereditary trustees of the De...
G. Ramiah Baghavathar Vs. Chinna Karuppannan Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad478; (1937)1MLJ566
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. I he question involved in this revision petition is the right to recover arrears of rent by the plaintiff from the defendants from March, 1932. The plaintiff obtained a lease from the Koodal Alagar Devasthanam on 7th October, 1929, for a period of three years. Even prior to the said lease he was holding the lands on another lease which was to expire on the date of the new lease. In anticipation of getting the new lease he sub-leased the property to the defendants for a period of three years. The lease expired on 7th October, 1932, but the plaintiff did not surrender possession of the property on the expiry of the term; neither the defendants who were holding a portion of the property under the said sub-lease delivered possession to the plaintiff. It transpires from the evidence that the plaintiff was attempting negotiations with the Devasthanam for the renewal of the lease and the defendants were also making similar attempts for getting the lease to themselves a...
K.M.M. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. Ramaswami Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad582; (1937)1MLJ667
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application to revise an order refusing delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 31 of 1929 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Devakottai on a mortgage executed by one Muthuswami Servai, father of respondents 1 and 2 herein. The property mortgaged was admittedly joint family property wherein the said Muthuswami Servai and his sons were interested. In execution of the said decree three items of mortgaged property mentioned in the decree therein were brought to sale and purchased by the petitioner himself on the 29th June, 1931. After the purchase, the petitioner filed an application E.A. No. 118 of 1932 for delivery of possession of the said items and obtained delivery of items 2 and 3 but not of item 1. This was in consequence of an obstruction by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner then filed an application on the 4th March, 1932, E. A. No. 203 of 1932 on the file of the Court of...
Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad716
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is a Reference by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, and the questions referred are: (1) Whether the complaint preferred in, pursuance of an order passed by the Officiating Chief Justice on an office note is an. order passed by the Court within the meaning of Section 476, Criminal P.C. (2) Whether the Officiating Chief Justice could pass an order under Section 176, Criminal P.C., in a case where no orders were passed under Section 476, Criminal P.C., either by the trial Judge or his successor or the appellate Bench that decided the Original Side appeal against the judgment and decree in C.S. No. 542 of 1931. (3) Whether the Officiating Chief Justice could be deemed to be the successor to the trial Judge who decided C.S. No. 542 of 1931 in the exercise of the original civil jurisdiction.2. The facts are set out in the order of reference, and briefly stated, they are that during the trial of C.S. No. 542 of 1931 on the file of the High Court, two documents ...
Km. Kr. Km. Kuppan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Masa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad424; (1937)1MLJ249
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the legal representatives of a decree-holder to get a claim order set aside.2. The father of the plaintiffs obtained a money decree against the first defendant on 17th September, 1926 on three promissory notes executed by the first defendant, Exs. D, D-1 and D-2. Between the dates of Exs. D and D-1 a partition arrangement was entered into between the first defendant and his sons, defendants 2 to 5. {Vide Ex. V, dated 13th October, 1925.) It is alleged that the plaintiff's father was not aware of this partition and so happened to make further advances to the first defendant under Exs. D-1 and D-2 in the course of November and December 1925. The suit, O.S. No. 1400 of 1926, was instituted for the recovery of money due under these three promissory notes but the first defendant alone was impleaded as defendant thereto and a decree was obtained in due course. When the plaintiffs proceeded to attach certain properties ...
Balath Kunhi Raman and anr. Vs. Varayali Govindan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad340; (1937)1MLJ329
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 57-0-7 as and for arrears of salary due to the petitioner. She was employed as a cook on a monthly salary of Rs. 4 per mensem in a hotel which the first defendant was running at Tirur. The case for the plaintiffs is that at the instance of the second defendant she entered employment under the first defendant as a cook and both promised to pay her the salary agreed. The suit was instituted on 21st November, 1934, for the arrears due in respect of the period of her service, namely, 9th November, 1931 to 8th September, 1933. The learned District Munsiff of Tellicherry dismissed it on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 7 of the Limitation Act. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the proper article applicable is Article 102. Article 7 runs thus:For the wages of a household One year. When the wages ac-servant, artisan or labourer not pro crued due.vided for by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »