Chennai Court August 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.
Nagarpur Sambayya Vs. Nagarpur Pedda Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad19; (1937)2MLJ703
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. The suit was to recover a sum of money due in respect of two promissory notes dated 7th May, 1922, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequent to the execution of the promissory notes, the creditors, presented a petition in insolvency on 7th November, 1922, to adjudicate the defendant an insolvent. The order of adjudication was passed on 21st March, 1923. The adjudication order was annulled on 5th April, 1928. The suit was instituted on 23rd October, 1930. The plaintiff seeks to escape the bar of limitation by alleging that he is entitled to exclude the whole period during which the proceedings in insolvency were pending, that is, from 7th November, 1922, the date of the presentation of the insolvency petition to 5th April, 1928, the date of annulment. The contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff is entitled to exclude only the period from the date of the order of adjudication, namely, 21...
Kaliaperumal Pillai Vs. Visalakshmi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad32
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. Much as I sympathise with the plaintiff, I am unable to hold that the circumstances disclosed by the evidence warrant the decree which the lower Court has passed against the defendant. The question is whether the defendant can be charged as a bailee and made liable for the loss of some gold belonging to the plaintiff. The evidence shows that the plaintiff arranged that certain jewels which she desired to be made should be got made by certain goldsmiths working in the defendant's house, apparently because there was more convenient accommodation there. The plaintiff admits that she used to attend every day in the defendant's house during the time that the goldsmiths were at work. It is true that even according to the defendant's written statement he received at the outset two old jewels from the plaintiff for the purpose of being melted into gold and being utilized for the making of the new jewels; but any bailment that could be gathered from that admission must ...
Gaddam Ademma and anr. Vs. Anam Hanuma Reddi Declared Major and Guardi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad967; 173Ind.Cas.924; (1938)1MLJ232
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the father's half sister's son or the maternal uncle's son is the preferential heir to the estate of one dying intestate. The learned Subordinate Judge of Nellore was of the opinion that the maternal uncle's son is the preferential heir. It is against this decision that this appeal has been preferred. It seems to us that this matter is concluded by the recent decision of the Privy Council in Jotindra Nath Roy v. Nagendra Nath Roy (1931) 61 M.L.J. 442 : L.R. 58 IndAp 372 : I.L.R. 59 Cal. 576 (P.C.). In that case the conflict was between father's half sister's son and mother's sister's son and their Lordships held that father's half sister's son is the preferential heir. The ground of the decision is this. Both are atma bandhus and between bandhus of the same class 'the spiritual benefit they confer upon the propositus is a ground of preference'. This was the principle laid down in Muthusami v. Muthukumarasami (1892) 2...
D. Doss and ors. Vs. C.P. Connell and W.A.P. Lobo (Joint Official Liqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad124; (1937)2MLJ848
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal and appeals Nos. 27 of 1937 and 28 of 1937 arise out of a misfeasance summons taken out by the Official Liquidators of the General Banking Corporation, Limited, against the directors of that company. The appeals have been heard together and it will be convenient to deal with them in one judgment.2. The company was registered on the 11th May, 1933, for the purpose inter alia of doing all kinds of banking business. The promoter was one P.K. Nair, a barrister at law, who was at the time and has since remained an undischarged insolvent. Nair who was the ninth respondent in the proceedings Doss before the learned trial judge, arranged that he should be Connell appointed legal adviser to the company and the 'advisory and director'. A prospectus was prepared, but fortunately there was no general application made to the public to subscribe Leach, C.J, shares. There were eight other directors, who were respondents 1 to 8. Two of them respondents 3 a...
Suppan Chettiar, S/O Adaikalam Chettiar Vs. Rangan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad405
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises some important questions of law, and has been fully argued on both sides. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for redemption in 1921. He became entitled to redeem the suit mortgage on 1st July of that year and made the statutory deposit in Court Under Section 83, T.P. Act, on 5th July. Defendants 3 to 5, to whom the mortgage had, by then, been assigned, refused to accept the deposit as valid and thereupon the present suit for redemption was filed on 16th September 1921. The parties have employed their ingenuity to protect it till now, i.e. for over 15 years and during the greater part of this period the mortgage amount, namely Rs. 14,000 remained in deposit in Court without carrying interest. For a proper appreciation of the points raised, it will be necessary to set out the facts of this case in some detail.2. The village of Virakudi, the suit property, belonged to the zamindar of Neduvasal, who granted a usufructuary mortgage in respect of it...
Kamalathachi and ors. Vs. Meenakshi Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad964; (1937)2MLJ543
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for leave Rao, J. to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The plaintiff in the suit claimed that the property in question belonged in four equal shares to herself and her three sisters defendants 1, 2 and 3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant, who asserted that she was exclusively entitled to the property and denied that it was divisible into four shares. There was a further prayer in the plaint that the first defendant should be directed to render an account of her management of the property. First, dealing with the question of title, the learned trial Judge accepting the plaintiff's contention held that the property was divisible into four shares. Then as regards the claim to an account, the learned Judge held that on the analogy of the principle applicable to the manager of a Hindu coparcenary that the first defendant's liability to account was restricted to the property as it existed at the time of the suit. There was a mortgage ...
C. Muniswami Naidu Vs. S. Rangachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad961; 173Ind.Cas.689
Leach, C.J.1. In 1935 the appellant was indebted to one S. Rangachari in the sum of Rs. 317-12-0 (in respect of which a decree had been obtained against him) and a sum of over Rs. 2,000 due under a promissory note. In execution of the decree the creditor attached a house belonging to the appellant. The attachment continued for more than 21 days and this was made the basis of a petition filed in February 1936 in this Court asking that the appellant be adjudicated an insolvent. This petition was withdrawn in April of that year as the result of an arrangement made between the parties. It was agreed that the appellant should execute a mortgage in favour of Rangachari to secure his indebtedness to him and that the appellant should repay this indebtedness in the following instalments: Rs. 400 to be paid on or before 15th July 1936; Rs. 500 to be paid on or before 15th December 1936; and the balance in two equal instalments within a period of one year from 15th December 1936. It was also agre...
Bhavanam Nagireddi and ors. Vs. the Board of Commissioner for Hindu Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad973; (1937)2MLJ485
Varadachariar, J.1. This petition arises out of an application under Section 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The Board had held the temple in question to be a ' temple ' within the meaning of the Act; the petitioners contended before the lower Court and contended before me that the requisites of the definition of a 'temple' as given in Section 9(2) of the Act are not satisfied in the present case.2. I cannot ignore the fact that this Court can deal with the matter only subject to the limitations laid down in Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge cannot be said to have ignored the terms of the definition in the Act, because his order winds up with the very terms employed in that definition. If I were satisfied that on any of the considerations on which his judgment is based he had fallen into such a serious error that it could be said to have fundamentally misled him in dealing with the question, I might perhaps have been disposed to interfere ev...
C.S. Mahadeva Aiyar Vs. the Municipal Council, Represented by the Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ569
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This petition raises the question whether the petitioner who in 1931 was the District Judge of Kistna with headquarters at Masulipatam is liable to the Municipal Council of Masulipatam in the sum of Rs. 93-10-0 by way of profession tax. The petitioner was appointed the District Judge of Kistna on the 1st April, 1931. The Court closed for the vacation on the 4th May, 1931, and the petitioner left Masulipatam never to return, although he remained the District Judge of Kistna until the 31st July, 1931, when he retired. The Court reopened after the vacation on the 6th July, 1931. On the 22nd April, 1931, that is, before the Court closed for the vacation, the Government of Madras granted to the petitioner leave on average pay from the 6th July to the 30th July, with permission to prefix the period of the vacation. By the same order the Government appointed an Additional Sessions Judge with head quarters at Ellore in order that criminal cases could be dealt ...
In Re: Ramalinga Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad975; (1937)2MLJ620
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act by the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, and his conviction has been confirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence for the prosecution shows that on the morning of the 9th October, 1936, a miscellaneous collection of arms and ammunition was found in a house belonging to the petitioner at Kuppandam palayam. The petitioner had been arrested on a charge of murder in Coimbatore the previous evening. Except the fact that the arms and ammunition were found in the petitioner's house there is really no evidence for the prosecution and the case against the petitioner depends upon the evidence of the discovery in the house, whether it is of itself sufficient for a conviction or not. The defence was that the contraband property must have been foisted into the house by some one of the petitioner's enemies and an attempt was made to prove by positive evidence that persons ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »