Chennai Court September 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.
M.K.A.P. Saiyed Muhammad Bhukari Vs. Inspector of Municipal Councils a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad801
ORDERMenon, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings connected with the removal of the petitioner from the office of the President of the Panchayat Board, Kayalpatnam, and to quash the proceedings of the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards.2. The petitioner was the President of the Panchayat Board of Kayalpatnam in Tiruchendur Taluq, in Tinnevelly District, having been elected to that office in October 1934. On 7th March 1936, the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards issued a notice to the petitioner under Sections 43 and 233, Local Boards Act, drawing his attention to several irregularities in the discharge of his duties as the President of the said Panchayat Board and calling upon him to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice why those irregularities should not be regarded as deliberate abuse of his powers falling under the purview of Section 43(1), Madras Local Boa...
P. Ramanujiah, Sole Proprietor of P. Thiruvengadiah and Son Vs. the Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad155; (1937)1MLJ138
Gentle, J.1. The matter which is for consideration here and which I have to decide is whether a commodity known as plywood is timber within the meaning of Section 98 of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919. The relevant passages in that section are as follows:The Corporation may levy (f) a tax on timber brought into the City.2. Section 129 of that Act has been repealed and there is substituted for it the provisions of Section 77 of the Madras Act No. X of 1936. The relevant passages of the latter section are as follows:(1) If the Council by a resolution determines that a tax shall be levied on timber brought into the City, such tax shall be levied at such rates-not exceeding Rs. 5 per ton and in such manner as may be determined by the: Council.(2) No timber shall...be brought into the City unless the tax due thereon has been paid.(3) The tax shall be levied on timber kept within the City for sale if the Commissioner has reason to believe that the tax if any due thereon has not been pa...
P. Ramanujah, Sole Proprietor of P. Thiruvengadaiah and Son Vs. the Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.492
Gentle, J.1. The matter which is for consideration here and which I have to decide is whether a commodity known as plywood is timber within the meaning of Section 98 of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919. The relevant passages in that section are as follows:The Corporation may levy (f) a tax on timber brought into the City.2. Section 129 of that Act has been repealed and there is substituted for it the provisions of Section 77 of the Madras Act No. X of 1936. The relevant passages of the latter section are as follows:(1) If the Council by a resolution determines that a tax shall be levied on timber brought into the City, such tax shall be levied at such rates not exceeding Rs. 5 per ton and in such manner as may be determined by the Council.(2) No timber shall...be brought into City unless the tax due thereon has been paid.(3) The tax shall be levied on timber kept within the City for sale if the Commissioner has reason to believe that the tax if any due thereon has not been paid, p...
In Re: T. Sadagopa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ788
Wadsworth, J.1. The preliminary question to be decided is whether the application by the Official Assignee to set aside a number of alienations made within a period of about one fortnight by the insolvent is bad for multifariousness and whether he should be required to file separate applications in the case of each alienation. My attention has been drawn to various cases on the subject of clubbing in one proceeding claims for separate reliefs against a number of different persons. There is a judgment of Panckridge, J., reported in In re Binjraj Harnandrai I.L.R. (1933) 60 Cal. 1367 in which the practice of applying in one proceeding to set aside a number of alienations is deprecated. As regards that judgment, there is nothing to show that there was any allegation of conspiracy or collusion between the various alienees. That the Court can try in one suit the question whether numerous alienations by a trustee to various persons are bad was held in the Full Bench decision reported in Govi...
Muthu Kr. Ar. Pl. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Kalayappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad253; (1937)1MLJ180
Horwill, J.1. The respondents in this petition attached the whole family property of the father and the son before judgment. A decree was obtained and the property was subsequently brought to sale and the purchase money deposited in Court. The father became insolvent and the father's share of the proceeds was handed over to the Official Receiver. Because the son's share had already been attached the father had no power over the son's share of the property and so the Official Receiver was allowed to take only the father's share of the proceeds. The petitioner, who obtained a decree against the father on a promissory note debt, has filed a petition for rateable distribution. The Subordinate Judge of Dindigul held that the petitioner could not be granted this relief.2. The argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that as the son is liable for his father's debt, it is not necessary for him to add the son as a party to execution proceedings against the family property, that hi...
Official Assignee Vs. R. Krishnaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad192
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. The preliminary question to be decided is whether the application by the Official Assignee to set aside a number of alienations made within a period of about one fortnight by the insolvent is bad for multifariousness and whether he should be required to file separate applications in the case of each alienation. My attention has been drawn to various cases on the subject of clubbing in one proceeding claims for separate reliefs against a number of different persons. There is a judgment of Panckridge, J. reported in In re Binjraj Harnandrai : AIR1934Cal232 , in which the practice of applying in one proceeding to set aside a number of alienations is deprecated. As regards that judgment, there is nothing to show that there was any allegation of conspiracy or collusion between the various alienees. That the Court can try in one suit the question whether numerous alienations by a trustee to various persons are bad was held in the Full Bench decision reported in Govindara...
In Re: H.B. Babington
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad14; (1936)71MLJ827
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the Sessions Judge of Coorg, confirming the order of the District Magistrate of Coorg, convicting the petitioner under Sections 408 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month.2. The learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that it is the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Coorg that has revisional jurisdiction over the matter. Mr. Coelho for the petitioner answers that, as the petitioner is an Eufopean British subject this Court alone is the revisional authority by reason of the provisions of Section 4(j) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 16 of the Coorg Code. It is not disputed that, if the petitioner has asserted his right as a European subject, his case is one to which the provisions of Chapters XXXIII and XLIV-A of the Criminal Procedure Code would...
Shanmukam Alias Muthukaruppan, Minor Represented by His Guardian Shanm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ278
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the second defendant against a decree for sale passed in a mortgagee's suit. The second defendant is the undivided minor son of the first defendant who executed the suit mortgage bond (Ex. A) on 24th May, 1924, securing repayment of a sum of Rs. 11,000 borrowed in the manner and for the purposes set forth in Ex. A. Besides the two defendants, it is stated that there are two other members in their joint family, namely, the father and the uncle of the first defendant.2. Ex. A purports to mortgage six items of properties which it would appear were all purchased in the name of the first defendant though he was only a junior member in the family. In respect of the first of these items, the document uses the following words 'property which I purchased as self-acquisition under a sale deed dated 27th March, 1919, etc.' In respect of other items, though a reference is made to the fact of purchase in the first defendant's name the term self-acquisition i...
K.M. Ramakrishna Mudaliar Vs. V.S.V. Manikka Mudaliar (Deceased) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad375; (1937)1MLJ587
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgagee s suit for sale. The mortgage document (Ex. A) which was executed by the first defendant on 25th September, 1915, comprised properties which it appears from several statements on record stood in the first defendant's name, but as the title deeds themselves have not been produced it is not possible to make a mere positive statement on the point. At the time of the mortgage, the first defendant was undoubtedly a member of a joint family which consisted of a large number of male members and his father Varadaraja Mudaliar was also alive. The evidence establishes that the family was a trading family and was carrying on cloth trade; for convenience, they were having two shops which may be referred to as Shop No. 154 and Shop No. 172. In their dealings with outsiders, the family seem to have found it convenient, whether it be for bookkeeping purposes or for other purposes as well, to keep two sets of accounts, one for Shop No. 154 and ...
Srireddi Venkatraju and ors. Vs. Allam Gangaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad113; 166Ind.Cas.648; (1936)71MLJ808
Cornish, J.1. the appellants are the legal representatives of the decree-holder. He obtained his decree on 15th October, 1918. On 7th November, 1929, the appellants made an application to have the decree transmitted to another Court for execution. In the meanwhile there had been a protracted attempt to serve the third defendant with notices. First defendant had been served and fifth defendant had been served; but first defendant, the father and guardian of the third defendant, refused service on his behalf, and when the appellants got third defendant's mother appointed his guardian, that woman was never at the address to which the notice was sent. At long last on 30th October, 1930, a Court clerk was appointed guardian. By that time of course 12 years from the date of the decree had passed. The Court' to which the decree was transmitted returned it to the transmitting Court to determine the question of limitation. And upon this both the lower Courts have held that the execution applica...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »