Chennai Court April 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.
Mrs. Evelyn Popaly Vs. Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.346
Beasley, C.J.1. The Official Assignee applied to the Insolvency Court under Section 7, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. for a declaration that certain houses are the property of the insolvent purchased in the ' name of his wife. respondent No.?, or in the alternative, that the insolvent has a half interest in those houses. At the hearing before Wadsworth, J., respondent No. 2 raised the preliminary objection that as respondent No. 2 had been examined under Section 36 of the Act, the proceedings against her under Section 7 were barred. That objection the trial Judge overruled holding that the previous examination under Section 36 of the Act was no bar to the proceedings before him. The hearing of the application has been stayed pending this appeal. The point before us is to what extent this case is covered by the Full Bench decision in Official Assignee of Madras v. Narasimha Mudaliar : AIR1929Mad705 and for its determination depends upon whether the subject-matter of the application is...
Velayudham Pillai and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad711; 171Ind.Cas.951
King, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted in this case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, of various charges connected with the manufacture of what according to the prosecution are counterfeit King-Emperor'e coins during May, 1936. The facts found by the learned Judge and, in view of the legal argument to which I shall refer later, not seriously challenged in the appeal before me were that appeallant No. 1 instructed appellant No. 2 to make for him a number of two anna pieces and that when these pieces were manufactured, he made most of them up into a bundle which he gave to P.W. No. 3, his servant, with instructions that P.W. No. 3 should surreptitiously introduce them into the shop of P.W. No. 6 with whom he had lately conceived various grounds of enmity. Prosecution Witness No. 3 accordingly took the bundle and placed it in P.W. No. 6's shop. Information, was then given to the Police to the effect that if they searched P.W. No. 6's shop and house they wo...
Ramath Kappalli Kelu Kurup Vs. Eacharambath Madathil Subramania Aiyar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad644; (1937)2MLJ299
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The point that is constantly being agitated in the High Court is again before me, that is, the question whether the High Court is bound to interfere in revision when the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, that is, where the District Munsiff has wrongly tried an original suit on the Small Cause Side or conversely has tried a Small Cause Suit on the Original Side. This point as to jurisdiction is constantly taken for the first time in the High Court and I am satisfied from the cases which have been put before me that the majority opinion in this High Court is that the High Court is not bound to allow the point under such circumstances to be taken or if it is allowed to be taken the High Court is not bound to interfere in revision if it is satisfied that the lower Court's decree was correct. This latter point put in the following way I think seems in justice and reason to be capable of only one answer. If the District Munsiff sitting ...
T.C. Nilamegham Pillai and anr. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad777
Varadachariar, J.1. The appellant who had been appointed Income-tax Officer in June 1922 was dismissed from service by an order of the Commissioner, dated 22nd June 1925. He filed this suit for damages, contending that this order of dismissal was illegal, void and ultra vires.2. The validity of the order was challenged on two grounds: (1) that the Commissioner did not hold a proper enquiry before passing the order of dismissal and (2) that in view of the provisions of Section 96-B, Government of India Act, 1919, the Commissioner was not competent to pass the order of dismissal. Before the lower Court, the first of the above contentions was advanced on the assumption that the plaintiff would have been dismissed only aftar enquiry in the manner prescribed by Rule 14 of the Civil Service Classification Rules. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that that rule was not applicable to persons appointed under the Income-tax Act of 1922. This question has now become immaterial, because...
K.V. Ramaswami Naick and anr. Vs. Rangaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad968
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioners, who are father and son, have been convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Sivakasi for the dishonest misappropriation of five bandy loads of cotton, the property of P.W. 1, on 19th June 1934 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. The conviction and sentences have been confirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad. The undisputed facts of the case are that P.W. 1 sent the cotton from a ginning factory at Erichanatham to Virudhunagar on 19th June; that accused 1 was a creditor of P.W. 1 who came to Erichanatham on that day to demand payment of his debt, which according to himself amounted to Rs. 360, that petitioner 1 accompanied the bandies to Virudhunagar, that at Virudhunagar petitioner 1 sold the cotton to an agent of Volkart Bros.; and that on 21st June petitioner 2 was paid Rs.1,200 for the cotton.2. The points of difference between prosecution and defence are the following: P.W. 1 says he bought the cotton from P. Ws. 13 and 16 a...
Neelamegham Pillai Vs. Secretary of State for IndiA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR424(Mad)
VARADACHARIAR, J. - The appellant who had been appointed Income Tax Officer in June 1922 was dismissed from service by an order of the Commissioner, dated June 22, 1922. He filed this suit for damages, contending that order of dismissal was illegal, void and ultra vires.The validity of the order was challenged on two grounds (1) that the Commissioner did not hold a proper enquiry before passing the order of dismissal and (2) that in view of the provisions of Sec. 96-B of the Government of India Act, 1919, the Commissioner was not competent to pass the order of dismissal. Before the lower Court the first of the above contentions was advanced on the assumption that the plaintiff could have been dismissed only after enquiry in the manner prescribed by Rule 14 of the Civil Service Classification Rules. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that that rule was not applicable to persons appointed under the Income-tax Act of 1922. This question has now become immaterial, because, even a...
Kothapalli Kanuparthi Subbayya and anr. Vs. Nichenametla Subbarayadu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad730
ORDERCornish, J.1. Respondent 1 in this civil revision petition filed a suit against respondent 2, and in that suit attached before judgment a quantity of indigo. Thereupon, the present petitioner, claiming that the indigo was the property of a partnership of which he and respondent 2 were members, made an application under Order 21, Rules 49 and 58 and Order 38, Rule 8 to have the attachment set aside. The lower Court held that Section 69, Partnership Act, was a bar to this application, inasmuch as the alleged partnership had not been registered, and dismissed the application. Section 69(1) provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted by a member of a firm suing as a partner against the firm unless the firm is registered; and Sub-section 2 provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted by or on behalf of an unregistered firm against a third party. Then comes Sub-section 3 which applies the provisions of Sub-...
K. Kandappa Chetti Vs. Lakshmammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad878; 173Ind.Cas.693
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant and the suit is for recovery of the balance of principal and interest due under a mortgage executed by the husband of defendant 1 in his favour, by sale of the plaint A and B schedule properties. The mortgage was of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties and it is found by the Courts below that with the concurrence of the plaintiff, the mortgagor sold the C schedule properties piecemeal, appropriated a portion of the proceeds himself, paid a portion to the plaintiff in full satisfaction of simple debts due to him and paid the balance to the plaintiff towards the mortgage. Nothing will be due under the mortgage if, as held by the Courts below, the amounts paid towards the simple debts have to be applied in reduction of the mortgage debt, and the sole question for determination in this second appeal is whether those amounts have in law to be so applied. The law is that money received by a mortgagee by virtue of the mortgage or sale of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›