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.
Khan Bahadur H.M. and D.H. Bhiwandiwalla and Co. Vs. Secretary of Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad536
Gentle, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs who are a firm of merchants in Madras against the Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Collector of Sea Customs, Madras, in which they claim a declaration that the order of the Central Board of Revenue dated 11th January 1933 assessing the plaintiffs to duty at the enhanced rate prevailing on 31st August 1932 is contrary to law, ultra vires and against the Sea Customs Act and for an order directing the defendant to refund to the plaintiffs an agreed amount alleged to be the sum paid in excess of the correct sum for import duty on account of the enhanced duty imposed, that is to say, the difference between the higher and lower rates of duty.2. The suit is brought under these circumstanstances: On 28th August 1932 S. Section 'Rohana' arrived in Madras carrying 35 cases of cotton printed shirtings which the plaintiffs desired to import into this country. It also carried 25 cases of cotton twill which the plaintiff...
Karuppanda Goundar and anr. Vs. V.C.T.N. Chidambaram Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.864
Cornish, J.1. The appellants are the sureties upon a bond given by them to the Court in pursuance of the provision in Section 55 (4), Civil Procedure Code.2. The respondent, a decree-holder having arrested his judgment-debtor, that person expressed his intention of taking life benefit of the Insolvency Act, the decree debt feeing for Rs. 2,000. Accordingly the appellants entered into a bond whereby they undertook to produce the debtor before the Court whenever directed.To cause him to file an insolvency petition within one month from that date, and to get him to prosecute it to its very end and also to produces him in the meantime.3. In short, the bond appears to have been so framed as to carry into effect the purpose for which security can be required by the Court under Section 55 (4), namely, to ensure that a debtor who, on his arrest, and in order to be released from arrest expresses an intention to apply to be declared an insolvent shall carry out that intention. It so happened tha...
Sri Mahant Sitaram Dass Bavaji Vs. the Madras Religious Endowment Boar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad106; (1937)1MLJ475
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 63(4) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, impugning a scheme framed by the Board for the management of a group of mutts. Only two points have been pressed before us : (1) as to the propriety of giving the associate trustee overriding powers over the Mahant, and (2) as to the power of the Board to settle a list of properties belonging to the institution. The latter point may be briefly disposed of.2. It does not appear from the record whether any objection was taken by or on behalf of the Mahant before the Board about the properties to be included in the list attached to the scheme of properties belonging to the mutt. We cannot agree with the contention advanced by Mr. Jagannath Doss, on behalf of the Mahant, that the Board has no power to settle such a list. Section 63 undoubtedly gives power to the Board to frame a scheme for the management of the institution and this power carries with it the power to settle what t...
Lanka Venkaya Vs. Sree Meerza Raja, Sree Pooshavati Alaka Narayana Gaj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad211
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is defendant 1 in the suit brought by the landlord against him and defendant 2. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 204 odd, being the balance of expenses of distress levied by the landlord upon the moveable property of defendant 1. In that suit defendant 1 was ex parte and defendant 2 was exonerated. The result was that a decree was passed ex parte against defendant 1 for a sum of Rs. 204 representing the landlord's claim for expenses of the distraint. The facts were that defendant 1 was a raiyat of the plaintiff, and having fallen into arrears with his rent to the extent of Rs. 48, his landlord exercised the right of distraint Under Section 77(ii), Madras Estates Land Act, and distrained a cart and a cow belonging to defendant 1. For some reason which does not appear, although the distraint was made in July 1931, the sale did not take place till November. At the time of the sale the landlord exhibited to the sale offi...
Kandasami Mudali Vs. Annamalai Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ795
Cornish, J.1. In execution of a mortgage decree against the appellant his property was brought to sale on 10th August, 1927. The preliminary decree in the suit had been made ex parte but before the passing of the final decree the appellant had applied to have the ex parte preliminary decree set aside. ' He did not succeed in this application until the matter had been carried to the appellate Court when the ex parte decree was set aside and the suit was remanded for fresh trial. This was on 16th January, 1928. The result of this new trial was that the mortgage amount decreed was Rs. 278-9-3 less than the amount of the ex parte decree. This new decree was made on 31st October, 1928. An application for restitution was made by the appellant of the excess amount received by the respondent from the sale under the ex parte decree. This application was made on 30th October, 1931. The question is, is this application in time? The District Judge has held that restitution could have been and ough...
In Re: Vedagiri Perumal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad130; 166Ind.Cas.36
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case was convicted of a public nuisance, and sentenced Under Section 290, I.P.C., by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Chingleput to pay a fine of Rs. 10 and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. This conviction and sentence were confirmed by the joint Magistrate of Chingleput. The alleged public nuisance was that the petitioner, a respectable man of 55 years, passed urine in a grazing ground poramboke under cover of a tamarind tree in the village of Guduvancheri to which the Towns Nuisances Act does not apply. If the view taken by the Courts below is to be accepted as correct, it would follow that the mere act of passing urine in any public place, in the sense of a place open to the public, would amount to an offence punishable Under Section 290, I.P.C. The essential ingredient of the offence is that the act must cause any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell o...
Halsnad Madappaya Vs. P. Mahabala Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad826
Horwill, J.1. On 23rd February 1916 defendant 1 executed the mortgage deed, Ex. A, in favour of the plaintiff for Rupees 20,000. In this document were recitals by which the plaintiff held himself responsible for any loss that might accrue to defendant 1 on the ground of his not paying off certain debts out of the consideration. On the other hand, defendant 1 held himself liable on the security of the same property for any excess amount that might be spent by the plaintiff in preserving his mortgage rights. In Ex. A there was a definite recital that there were no prior mortgages. In fact however there was a mortgage evidenced by Ex. M dated 15th January 1900 for Rs. 400 on items 1 to 5 of the same property. In 1916 the mortgagee of that prior mortgage brought O.S. No. 180 of 1916, to which both the present plaintiff and defendant 1 were parties. During the course of the suit, on 8th June 1917, defendant 2, by Ex. J., purchased the equity of redemption. The property was brought to sale a...
Pulavarti Satyam Vs. Kunchibhotla Satyanarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad953; (1936)71MLJ675
Cornish, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 2,000 in the following circumstances. This sum was paid into Court as due to the plaintiff who was then a minor represented by the guardian, the fifth defendant. The first defendant gave a bond for the amount, hypothecating immovable property as security, and undertaking that this money should be paid to the plaintiff by the guardian in due course. Plaintiff having reached his majority, and the money, as he alleged, not having been paid over to him by the guardian, has brought a suit to enforce the bond which had been duly assigned to him by the District Munsif of Rajahmundry. The second defendant, who is the appellant, is the subsequent alienee of the property hypothecated by the first defendant. He has objected that the suit is not maintainable.2. The first question to be decided is whether this bond carried a personal liability on the part of the first defendant. In my opinion, the language of the bond shows clearly that it di...
Chaganti Veerasalingam Vs. Mallampalli Subbarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad229; 166Ind.Cas.890
Cornish, J.1. The appellant is defendant 2. With defendant 1, his mother-in-law, he was sued for the conversion of certain articles. A decree was made against them directing the return of the articles alleged to have been converted or to pay the value of them. The decree, in my opinion, fixed the defendants with a joint and several liability. The defendants appealed, and on an application for stay of execution pending the appeal the Court ordered that the decree amount, a sum of Rs. 1,275, should be paid into Court. This money was paid into Court by the appellant (defendant 2). It is so found as a fact by the first Court and upon the evidence given in the case I think there can be no doubt about it. The plaintiff, who is respondent 3 before me, applied to take the money out of Court, and an order was made to that effect on her furnishing security for the amount. Respondents 1 and 2 became sureties and executed a bond for the amount. In the appeal defendant 2 was successful and the decr...
Kavuri Anjayya Vs. Alapati Ankamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad99; 166Ind.Cas.866
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff was the creditor of the deceased undivided father of defendant 1. He has brought this suit for an administration of such part of the mother's estate as is liable for his father's debts. The trial Court held that such a suit lay. In appeal the Subordinate Judge of Tenali, interpreting Section 218, Succession Act, held that the suit was not maintainable. Two questions have been discussed in second appeal. One is whether, in view of the fact that defendant 1 was undivided from his father, an administration suit would be maintainable, and, secondly, even if it were, would the plaintiff, against the interest of a number of other creditors, be able to maintain the suit.2. With regard to the first point, there can be no doubt that although, for the purpose of the execution of decrees, decrees already passed against a deceased father can be executed against the son by virtue of Section 53, Civil P. C, yet defendant 1 is not the legal representative of the deceased d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »