Chennai Court January 1937 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.
Gogineni Ankayya Vs. Official Receiver, Masulipatam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad589
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. Two questions have been argued in this revision petition: (1) whether an interim receiver appointed under Section 20, Provincial Insolvency Act, is entitled to set aside a sale of immoveable property in execution of a decree under Order 21. Rule 89, Civil P.C., and (2) whether a person entitled to the distribution of the sale proceeds realized in execution of a decree in virtue of his being the holder of a decree is entitled to notice under Order 21, Rule 92, Civil P.C. Respondent 2 in this case obtained a decree for money against one Hanumantha Rao, and in execution thereof, the immoveable properties of the said Hanumantha Rao were brought to sale on 3rd October 1932 and purchased by respondents 3 and 4. Subsequent to the sale, at the instance of some creditors, an application was made to the Insolvency Court to adjudge Hanumantha Rao as insolvent and an application was also made in the said insolvency application for the appointment of an interim receiver...
In Re: Periasami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ854
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. One of these petitions is to set aside the order of the Sub-Magistrate dismissing the petition presented by the accused praying that the complaint against him should be dismissed and he should be acquitted because there was no valid complaint against him as contemplated by Section 223 of the Local Boards Act; in the other petition the order sought to be revised declined to allow the case to be withdrawn as prayed for by the section officer who filed the complaint on the ground that he had no power to withdraw the case as the prosecution was sanctioned by the President, District Board. It is clear from this statement of the facts that both the parties, namely, the prosecution and the accused, desire to put an end to the case but the Magistrate without giving any other reason than that the section officer had no power to withdraw the complaint has declined to put an end to the case according to the desire of both the parties. The Sub-Magistrate treated the section...
Dakamarri Kannayya Vs. Vadali Venkatesam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad480
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a case in which the petitioners who are dhobies by occupation have been convicted of criminal trespass and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- each Under Section 447, I.P.C. After a mere perusal of the complaint itself and the sworn deposition, any Magistrate who applied his mind to the provisions of Section 203, Criminal P.C., would certainly have had no difficulty in dismissing the complaint Under Section 203, Criminal P.C., and it would have been his duty to do so.2. The alleged trespass was on a piece of vacant site and it happened at a time when neither the complainant nor any one on his behalf was in actual possession; the complainant himself was not able to say on what date the alleged trespass took place. The accused were admittedly owners of the adjoining land and undoubtedly there was a dispute about the boundary. The complaint should, as I have already said, have been dismissed in limine Under Section 203, Criminal P.C. Not only was this not do...
V. Ramanna Shetty Vs. Inspector of Local Boards and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad557
Mockett, J.1. The petitioner was elected as a member of the District Board of South Kanara for the Kundapur Circle, His election was declared void by the Election Commissioner. He comes before us for a writ of certiorari to quash that order. The facts are very simple. A large number of corrupt practices were alleged against the petitioner but he was absolved from all those allegations except under one main heading. Under the rules with regard to the validity of elections held under the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, there is Rule 10 which materially bears on the question before us. It is as follows:If, in the opinion of the Election Commissioner, (a) the returned candidate or his agent or any other person with the connivance of such candidate or agent, has committed, or abetted the commission of any election offence falling under Section 58 of the Act or under Ch. 9-A, I.P.C., or (b) the election of the returned candidate has been procured or induced or the result of the election mater...
Annamalai Chettiar Vs. V.T. Chettiar Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad721; 173Ind.Cas.579
Horwill, J.1. The respondent in these appeals obtained a decree against Alagappa Chettiar and the members of his family in the Rangoon High Court and got it transferred to the Devakottai Sub-Court for execution. On the application of the decree-holder in E.P. No. 359 of 1933, the Sub-Court ordered arrest, and Alagappa Chettiar was brought to the Court under arrest on 24th October 1933. On that day he filed two documents. One was a counter to the E.P. denying that he was liable under the decree in that (1) he was not a partner of the firm, although his father was, and (2) that he received no notice of the application to transfer the decree for execution to the Sub-Court of Devakottai. He also filed E.A. No. 1309 of 1933 praying for release from arrest and stay of execution until his objections to the execution petition had been disposed of. He added a further prayer that if the Court deemed itself debarred from going behind the decree of the High Court, it should stay execution until he...
Dakkamarri Kannayya and ors. Vs. Vadali Venkatesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1937
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.703
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a case in which the petitioners who are dhobies by occupation have been convicted of criminal trespass and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 each under Section 447, Indian Penal Code. After a mere perusal of the complaint itself and the sworn deposition any Magistrate who applied his mind to the provisions of Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code would certainly have had no difficulty in dismissing the complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, and it would have been his duty to do so. The alleged trespass was on a piece of vacant site and it happened at a time when neither the complainant nor any one on his behalf was in actual possession; the complainant himself was not able to say on what date the alleged trespass took place. The accused were admittedly owners of the adjoining land and undoubtedly there was a dispute about the boundary. The complaint should, as have already said, have been dismissed in limine under Section 203 Criminal Proced...
Amina Bibi Vs. Kadir Batcha Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad529; (1937)1MLJ739
Horwill, J.1. A suit was brought for a declaration that a certain property gifted i6.ih$ plaintiff by her husband, who subsequently became an insolvent, was her property and for possession of the property which had been taken possession of by the Official Receiver as part of the estate of her insolvent husband. The question that has been referred to us is whether the consequential relief of possession is to be valued according to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act or Section 7(v).There is a long line of authority for the position that where the consequential relief is such as to fall directly under some other section of the Court-Fees Act the suit has to be valued under that special section and not under the general head of consequential relief, which would make it fall under Section 7(iv)(c). This principle was enunciated as long ago as Chinnammal v. Madarsa Rowther (1903) 14 M.L.J. 343 : I.L.R. 27 Mad. 480 by Boddam and Bashyam Aiyangar, JJ., and seems to have been accepted as ax...
Velagaleti Veerayya Vs. Kandeppu Narasimha Rao by Mother and Next Frie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad142; (1937)2MLJ883
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act only applies to debts 'proved' under the Act and not to debts 'provable'.2. The facts of the case here as I understand them are that the defendant filed an insolvency petition on 5th March, 1930, and was adjudicated on 5th September, 1930. Subsequently the adjudication was annulled on 31st August, 1932. The date of the promissory note is 4th November, 1928. Therefore, unless Section 78(2) can be relied upon by the creditor, the claim, in the suit was barred by limitation. The facts appear to be that all that was done with regard to the suit debt was that it was included by the insolvent in his schedule and nothing more. The learned Subordinate Judge holds that the debt was thereby 'proved' relying on the Calcutta decision and overlooking the decision in Lakshmi Bai v. Rukmaji Rao (1934) 67 M.L.J. 45: I.L.R. 57 Mad. 767. He also adds in further support of his view that he cannot imagine any better pr...
William Hudson Vs. Mrs. K.M. Webster
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad565
ORDERGentle, J.1. This is a petition by Mr. William Hudson praying that the ceremony of marriage which he celebrated with the respondent on 20th April 1935, should be declared null and void on the ground that at the time of such celebration of marriage there was in full force and existence a marriage between the respondent and Mr. Webster at that time, The petitioner was previously married and his wife, who was the sister of the respondent, died in February 1934. Later in that year the petitioner contemplated marriage with the respondent. He knew from his relationship by marriage with her and the fact that she had stayed with himself and his wife on a number of occasions that she had gone through a ceremony of marriage with Mr. T.A. Webster. The respondent had left Mr. Webster some time before February 1934 and was living with the petitioner, and his then wife. The respondent had told him that a previous wife of Mr. Webster whom that gentleman at the time he went through a ceremony of ...
R. Krishnamurthy Ayyar Vs. Pasupuletti Munuswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad531
Mockett, J.1. The petitioner is the decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 167 of 1933. The decree was against two defendants. It ordered them jointly and severally to pay a sum of money and with regard to defendant 2 it said:It is further ordered that the decree against defendant 2 shall stand stayed in case he pays on the 5th of every month commencing from 5th July 1933, at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem until the decree is satisfied; in case of default of any instalment this stay order will cease. The stay order will also have effect only on defendant 2 furnishing security of immovable property for the decree amount and agreeing to pay interest at 9 percent, per annum on or before 5th July 1933.2. A security bond was executed by defendant 2 and it referred to certain immoveable property and stated:I will be paying without default the said decree amount as per order of Court by the 5th of each month. In case of default of any instalment as aforesaid, the balance that may then be due after giving...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »