Chennai Court April 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.
Doddi Abdul Nabi Saib Vs. Kallappa Rajappa Patel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad800; 165Ind.Cas.83; (1936)71MLJ371
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The respondents are unrepresented.2. The learned Judge has disposed of the matter without sufficient advertence to the provisions of the Insolvency Act. The order of adjudication was made on the 12th September, 1932 and the period fixed within which the Insolvent was to apply for his discharge, was six months from that date. The application for an absolute discharge under Section 41, out of which this appeal arises, was made by the insolvent on the 3rd March, 1933, that is, within the time limited. Whether the Court shall grant or refuse an absolute order of discharge, must be determined with reference to the terms of Section 42; but the learned Judge, in rejecting the debtor's application, seems to have relied upon grounds not indicated in, or warranted by, that section. There was no opposition to the petition on the part of the creditors who were made parties. Then as regards the Receiver, whose report, Section 42 provides, shall be deemed to be evidence, he re...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R.P.S.P. Manickam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1936
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.31; (1938)1MLJ14
1. In this reference the facts are shortly as follows: The assessee is the manager of an undivided Hindu family and, inter alia, owns a money-lending business in Penang which is outside British India. This business had dealings in current account with M. RM. VL. Penang, the proprietor of which was resident in British India. On the 13th August, 1931, it was found on a settlement of this account that there was a sum of $11,700 owing to the assessee. In discharge of this amount, M. RM. VL. executed a promissory note in favour of the assessee. Later, the assessee obtained a decree against the debtor in the Devakottah Sub-Court for the sum due on this promissory note. In the year of account this decree was satisfied by the debtor selling to the assessee in British India jewels valued at Rs. 7,842-12-0 and agreeing to pay Rs. 15,962-12-0 to A.M.A. Kallal in consideration of which A. M. A. Kallal assigned in favour of the assessee a decree obtained by him in British India against RM. M. RM. w...
Senthattikalai Pandia Chinna Thambiar and anr. Vs. K. Rama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad704
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are appeals from orders of the District Judge of Tinnevelly dated 10th February 1934 in three connected appeals allowing the appeals and remanding the suits to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The suits were dismissed 'by the trial Court on the ground that they were barred by limitation, and the other issues framed in them were not decided. The lower appellate Court was of opinion that there was no bar of limitation and therefore remanded the suits for fresh disposal.2. The present appeals are by the defendant in all the three suits, namely, the Zamindar of Sivagiri, and the only point raised in these appeals is whether the suits are barred by limitation. The real question is which is the article of the Limitation Act applicable to the suits in -question. If the suits are governed by Article 131, Limitation Act, as contended by the respondents, there can be no doubt that the suits are not barred by limitation. It is however contended by the appellant that Ar...
Senthattikalai Pandia Chinna Thambiar (Deceased) and anr. Vs. K. Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.794
Pandrang, Row, J.1. These are appeals from the orders of the District Judge of Tinnevelly, dated February 10, 1934. in three connected appeals allowing the appeals and remanding the suits to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that they were barred by limitation, and the other issues framed in them were not decided. The lower Appellate Court was of opinion that there was no bar of limitation, and therefore, remanded the suits for fresh disposal.2. The present appeals are by the defendant in all the three suits, namely, the zamindar of Sivagiri and the only point raised in these appeals is whether the suits are barred by limitation. The real question is which is the article of the Limitation Act applicable to the suits in question.3. If the suits are governed by Article 131 of the Limitation Act as contended by the respondents, there can be no doubt that the suits are not barred by limitation. It is, however, contended by the app...
Ar. Pl. Sp. Manickam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR534(Mad)
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. - In this reference the facts are shortly as follows : The assessee is the manager of an undivided Hindu family and, inter alia, owns a money-lending business in Penang which is outside British India. This business had dealings in current account with M. RM. VL., Penang, the proprietor of which was resident in British India. On the August 13, 1931, it was found on settlement of this account that there was a sum of 11,700 dollars owing to the assessee. In discharge of this amount M. RM. VL. executed a promissory note in favour of the assessee. Later, the assessee obtainted a decree against the debtor in the Devakottah Sub-Court for the sum due on this promissory note. In the year of account this decree against the debtor in the Devakottah Sub-Court for the sum due on this promissor note. In the year of account this ecree was satisfied by the debtor selling to the assessee in British India Jewels value at Rs. 7,842-12-0 and agrring to pay Rs. 15,962-12-0 to A.M. A. Kal...
Sundararajan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Sethuramasami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad840; 166Ind.Cas.911; (1936)71MLJ344
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Ramnad dated 26th September 1934 setting aside on appeal the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated 20th December 1933 and remanding the petition on which that order was passed, namely Execution Petition No. 30 of 1932, to the Subordinate Judge for fresh disposal. That was a petition for restitution presented by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 36 of 1923. Against them the first plaintiff had obtained a decree for Rs. 3,700 and odd. On appeal the amount was reduced by Rs. 2,300 and on account of this variance of the 1st Court's decree made by the appellate Court these two defendants applied for restitution of the amount collected in excess from them in the course of execution of the 1st Court's decree. The amount actually claimed in restitution was Rs. 3,500 and odd. This application for restitution was opposed by the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff did not appear to contest the applicat...
(Kozhhikot Puthiya Kovilagath Patinharekettu Tavazhiyil Kuttimbatti Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad817
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut dated 23rd January 1936 dismissing an application for appointment of a receiver in respect of the properties belonging to Patinharekettu tavazhi of Pudia Kovilagam and for a temporary injunction restraining defendants 2 to 5 from interfering with the management of the receiver. The application was made by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 29 of 1935, a suit for removal of the managers appointed by a karar of 1090 M.E. (1914 A. D.) which vested the management of a tavazhi properties in five persons, namely the four seniormost male members and the seniormost female members. Before this karar there was another karar in 1895 which appointed the seniormost male member and the seniormost female member as managers subject to certain restrictions. The tavazi properties were managed under these two karars from 1895 till the date of suit, that is to say, for nearly 40 years. Till about 1933 there doe...
S.E. Makudam Mohammad Vs. T.V. Mohammad Sheikh Abdul Kadir and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ281
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly dated 20th February, 1934, reversing in appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly dated 27th January, 1933, in O.S. No. 279 of 1931 and remanding that suit for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by him. The suit was one for a declaration of the plaintiff's exclusive title to a house and for cancellation of the entry of the second defendant's name in the house-tax-payment register of the Union Board as the joint owner of the house along with the plaintiff and also for a mandatory injunction directing the President of the Union Board the first defendant, to strike off the second defendant's name from the register.2. The really contesting defendant was the second defendant who denied the title of the plaintiff. A number of issues were framed by the Trial Court but after all the evidence had been taken, both parties made an endorsement on the plaint to the eff...
A.V.P. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. Thaivanai Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad812; 165Ind.Cas.59; (1936)71MLJ317
Pandrang Row, J.1. These appeals are from certain orders passed in proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 102 of 1920 on the file of the sub-Court, Sivaganga. The earlier appeal is from the order dated 29th February, 1932 passed in an appeal by the District Judge of Ramnad, from the order of the subordinate Judge of Sivaganga dated 12th March, 1930. The later appeal is from the order of the District Judge dated 10th February, 1933 in an appeal from the order of the subordinate Judge of Devakottah dated 17th August, 1932. The later appeal is the more important of the two for the reason that if that appeal fails the other appeal is not going to be pressed.2. The later appeal No. 50 of 1933 is by the legal representatives of the decree-holder in the suit. The other appeal is by the judgment-debtor. There was an application made by the legal representatives to be brought on record in 1929 including a prayer for transmission of the decree for purposes of execution to the sub-Cou...
Patur Subramania Sastri Vs. Vedam Subbalakshmamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad870; 166Ind.Cas.941; (1936)71MLJ385
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, dated 4th August, 1931, reversing in appeal the order of the District Munsif of Gudur dated 5th February, 1929, in E.P. No. 1405 of 1928 an application to execute the decree in O.S. No. 630 of 1923 which inter alia created a charge on certain properties for the amount of maintenance due to and decreed in favour of the plaintiff in that suit. The appellant in this appeal was not a party to the decree. He is said to be a prior mortgagee of some of the properties on which a charge for maintenance has been given by the decree and he is said to have subsequently purchased the mortgaged properties outright. He was impleaded as judgment-debtor No. 5 in the execution application though he was not a party to the decree or to any execution proceeding till then. He protested that he could not be made a party and that the petitioner decree-holder had no right to execute the decree against him. The District Munsi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »