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.
K.A. Dawood Sahib Vs. V.A. Sheik Mohideen Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad5; (1937)2MLJ760
Alfred Henry Ltonel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent on the original side of this Court. The appellant was the first defendant. The suit was for the taking of the accounts of a partnership between the plaintiff and the first defendant.2. It appears that the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into partnership on the 14th April, 1920. On the 10th April, 1931, the plaintiff's father died, which meant in law the dissolution of the partnership. The partnership business was, however, carried on by the plaintiff (who took the place of his deceased father), and the first defendant. This partnership carried on business until 1933 when the first defendant gave notice to the plaintiff dissolving the partnership. When the original partnership was formed, that is, the partnership between the plaintiff's father and the first defendant, it was agreed that they should share equally in the profits. They had each contributed a sum of Rs. 2...
In Re: Mylaswami Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad951
Burn, J.1. The two prisoners have been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a woman named Unnamalai which they are said to have committed on the morning of 7th June 1936. Along with another, they were tried by another Sessions Judge in C.C. No. 135 of 1936. They were convicted on 4th December 1936, and sentenced to death; accused 3 was acquitted. On appeal to this Court in R.T. No. 7 of 1937, the learned Judges Mockett and Horwill, JJ. set aside the convictions of these two accused and ordered that they should be retried largely for the reason that one Rangaswami Gounden who had been examined as a witness in the Court of the committing Majistrate was not cited at the Sessions Court. This Rangaswami Gounden has now been examined as P.W. 8. He was cross-examined with regard to enmity and he denied all the insinuations made against him by the accused in the cross-examination; and the learned advocates who have appeared for the accused in this case have not been able to show ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›