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.
Vakkalagadda Venkata Rama Lakshmayya Vs. Parepalli Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad433
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the learned District Judge of Masulipatam which confirmed an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bezwada adjudicating the petitioner an insolvent. The petition for adjudication was filed by the respondents-creditors on 4th July 1932. Two main acts of insolvency were relied on in support of the application, viz. (1) a compromise decree suffered by the petitioner in and by which a charge was created over certain properties belonging to the petitioner on 5th February 1932; (2) the petitioner allowed his immoveable property to be sold in execution of a decree dated 13th June 1932 on the footing of a charge created in favour of one Nagaratnammal. So far as the first alleged act of insolvency is concerned, it is admittedly more than three months prior to the date of the presentation of the petition to adjudge the petitioner an insolvent. The view that formerly prevailed that where the application was made on the re-o...
Haji Abdul Kuthus Sahib and ors. Vs. Inayathulla Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad727
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of an order of the learned District Judge of North Arcot confirming an order of the learned District Munsif of Vellore allowing execution of a decree in O.S. No. 86 of 1923 on the file of the said District Munsif's Court. It was a money decree obtained by one Habibulla Sahib against defendants 1 to 4 in the suit on 22nd November 1923. Subsequent to the institution of the suit and before obtaining a decree, an application for attachment before judgment of a house belonging to defendant 1 was made and an attachment thereof obtained on 21st February 1923. The wife of defendant 1, one Maimoona Bi, preferred a claim to the said property on the ground that it was sold to her on 12th February 1923.2. The plaintiff decree-holder resisted the claim on the ground that it was a fraudulent transaction. The claim was disallowed on 24th July 1923. The said Maimoona Bi filed O.S. No. 670 of 1924 on 25th July 1924 to set aside t...
Bengal Insurance and Real Property Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Velayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad571
Cornish, J.1. The appellant in A. Section No. 50 is the Bengal Insurance and Real Property Company having its head office in Calcutta. It was sued by the plaintiff, the widow of one Sengottiah Goundan, to recover the money due on a life assurance policy between her husband and the Company. The proposal for this policy was made through the Company's agent ad Erode on 24th August 1927. The proposal was accepted by the Company on 8th September 1927. Thereupon a half year's premium became payable within five days from the date of the Company's notice of acceptance of the proposal. But this premium not having been paid, a fresh certificate of health, as required by the Company's notice (Ex. 23), had to be furnished by the assured to the Company. This he did on 22nd January 1928, and the declaration or certificate is Ex. 1. It stated that he was at the time in good health and that since his medical examination on 30th August 1927 he had not consulted any medical man or suffered from any illn...
In Re: N.V.L. Narasimha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad341
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of ten connected cases tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Guntur in respect of offences punishable Under Sections 131(4) and 134(4), Companies Act, 1913. Cases Nos. 345 to 349 are in respect of offences punishable Under Section 134 and the others are in respect of offences punishable Under Section 131 and they relate to the five years, 1921 to 1925. Section 134 relates to the non-sending of a copy of the balance-sheet after it had been laid before a general meeting of the company. Section 131 relates to the auditing of the balance-sheet of the accounts of the company and placing the same before a general meeting of the company. It is obvious to my mind that in respect of the same years the same persons cannot be charged with offences punishable both Under Sections 131 and 134 because Section 134 clearly contemplates the sending of a copy of the balance-sheet only after it has been placed or laid before the company at a g...
The Bengal Insurance and Real Property Co., Ltd. and anr. Vs. Velayamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1936
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.279
Cornish, J.1. The appellant in A.S. No. 50 is the Bengal Insurance and Real Property Company, having its head office in Calcutta. It was sued by the plaintiff, the widow of Sengottiah Goundan, to recover the money due on a life assurance policy between her husband and the company. The proposal for this policy was made through, the company's agent at Erode on August 21, 1927. The proposal was accepted by the company on September 8, 1927. Thereupon a half year's premium became payable within 5 days from the date of the company's notice of acceptance of the proposal. But this premium not having been paid a fresh certificate of health, as required by the company's notice (Ex. XXIII) had to be furnished by the assured to the company. This he did on January 22, 1928, and the declaration or certificate is Ex. I. It stated that he was at the time in good health, and that since his medical examination on August 30,1927, he had not consulted any medical man or suffered from any illness. The poli...
Tsappati Kotilingam Vs. Tsappati Satyanarayanamurti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad606
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This revision petition raises the question of court-fee. The plaintiff sues for a partition of what he calls the joint family property in which he and the defendants are interested. His case is that his father, the father of defendant 1, Mallayya and Nukayya formed members of a joint Hindu family, that Nukayya having expressed a desire to separate from the family, he was given some property in lieu of his share, and that the remaining two brothers, Mallayya and the father of the plaintiff, continued as members of the joint family without any division in status between them; Mallayya died and thereafter he and the defendants continued as members of an undivided family and he has been living with his maternal uncle and allowed defendant 1 to be in possession and management of the properties; as defendant 1 was wasting away the property, he called upon him to account but defendant 1 declined to render, and hence the necessity for this suit. The learned Subordi...
Padmanabhuni Narasimhadas Vs. Dist. Board of Kistna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Mad239
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The suit, the subject of this civil revision petition, was instituted by the petitioner against the District Board of Kistna to recover the balance of an amount due to him under a contract made with that District Board. The contract was to construct a culvert on one of the roads within the area of the District Board. Amongst the defences raised in the suit was one of limitation, it being pleaded that, as the suit had not been filed within six months of the accrual of the cause of action, it was barred by reason of Section 225, Madras Local Boards Act. The lower Court, after a careful and elaborate examination of the authorities touching this question, held that the case came within the provisions of that section and the suit not having been filed within six months from the date of the cause of action dismissed it as being barred by limitation. In my view that decision was clearly wrong. Whilst this case does not stand to be determined in the light of a some, what s...
Tsapatti Kotilingam Vs. Tsapatti Satyanarayana Murthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1936
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.940
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This revision petition raises the question of court-fee. The plaintiff sues for a partition of what he calls the joint family property in which he; and the defendants are interested. His case is that his father, the father of the 1st defendant, Mallayya and Nukkayya formed members of a joint Hindu family, that Nukkayya having expressed a desire to Beparate from the family, he was given some property in lieu of his share and that the remaining two brothers Mallayya and the father of the plaintiff continued as members of the joint family without any division, in status between them, Mallaya died and, thereafter he and the defendants continued as members of an undivided family and he has been living with his maternal uncle and allowed the 1st defendant to be in possession and management of the properties; as the 1st defendant was wasting away the property, called upon him to account but the 1st defendant declined to render and hence the necessity for this suit.2. T...
T. Sreeramamurthy and ors. Vs. T. Ranganayakulu, Honorary Secretary, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad273; (1937)1MLJ388
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners in this case were convicted by the District Magistrate of Kistna, the first four of them under Sections 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929 and the remaining one under Section 5 of that Act and sentenced to pay fines. Their convictions were confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge though the fines were reduced in the case of some of them.2. The only point argued in this revision petition is that the proceedings in the Court below were void ab initio because they were instituted prior to the declaration by the Government that the locality in which the marriage took place, namely, Frenchpet in Masulipatam, was part of British India. The marriage itself was celebrated in Frenchpet. It was declared by the Advocate-General in a case last year in this Court that Frenchpet was part of His Majesty's dominions and this declaration was accepted by the Bench which heard the case. The marriage in the present case was no doubt celebrated befo...
Kandula Ramayya Vs. Bangaru Rangaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1936
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ325
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This batch of revision petitions arises out of an order for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds of property realised in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 23 of 1931 passed by the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur. This order is impeached by the petitioner the decree-holder in the said suit, on the ground that the sale proceeds are not liable to be distributed. To appreciate the contentions raised on his behalf by his learned Counsel Mr. Suryanarayana, a few facts may be necessary. The petitioner filed the said O.S. No. 23 of 1931 against one Chunduri Panakala Rao and his three sons to recover a sum of Rs. 9,192-9-0 on foot of a promissory note executed by the said Chunduri Panakala Rao in his favour. It is admitted that the said Chunduri Panakala Rao and his three sons who are defendants 2 to 4 in that suit form members of an undivided Hindu family. The allegation in the plaint is that the debt was contracted by the father for a necessary purpose and therefo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »