Chennai Court September 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. Ramaswami Aiyangar Vs. K.V. Panduranga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad173; (1937)2MLJ757
ORDERNewsam, J.1. This is an application asking the Court to revise an order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate made in the following circumstances.2. In a suit on a pronote for Rs. 200, plaintiff applied for attachment befcre judgment of the defendant's movable property. The Court ordered notice to defendant. The notice was returned with an endorsement that it had been personally served on defendant. As defendant did not appear attachment was ordered. As soon as the bailiff went to effect attachment, the defendant paid up.3. The defendant complains that his signature on the reverse of the notice was forged by the clerk of plaintiff's Advocate and the forged document was used to stifle his objections to attachment before judgment.4. The defendant, after about a month's delay, moved the Court to prosecute the clerk of plaintiff's vakil and also filed a private complaint against him and also applied under Section 95, Civil Procedure Code, for compensation against plaintiff for attachmen...
G. Thiruvenkatachariar, Official Liquidator of the National Live Stock ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad154; (1937)2MLJ820
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a misfeasance summons taken out by the official liquidator of the National Live Stock Registration Bank, Ltd., against the respondents, who were the brokers of the company. The company was registered on the 2nd July, 1927, with a nominal capital of Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 50,000 shares of Rs. 10 each, of which 40,500 were preferred and 9,500 ordinary shares. The certificate permitting the company to carry on the business was issued by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies on the 1st August, 1927. The company was unsuccessful in its operations and went into voluntary liquidation on the 11th December, 1930. The voluntary liquidation was turned into a compulsory liquidation by an order of this Court, dated 13th October, 1932. The official liquidator sought to make the respondents liable to repay a sum of Rs. 8,865-11-3, which they had received as share-brokers of the company. The respondents are partners of a firm of provision...
Revula Ponneria Rao Alias Venkata Rao Vs. Revula Lakshmi Narasamma and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ154
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff attacks in this suit certain alienations made after his father's death by his stepmother and grandmother, who acted as his guardians during his minority. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff and except as regards defendant No. 11, it was disposed of by us some two days ago. We are now concerned with the sale in favour of himself and another, for Rs. 700, evidenced by Ex. II dated the 26th February, 1917. The suit was brought in 1929, almost when the period of limitation prescribed for such actions was coming to an end. The plaintiff challenged the sale on the ground that his father was leading an immoral and vicious life and the debts to discharge which the alienation was made were incurred for purposes not binding upon him. The learned Judge finds clearly that these allegations are utterly untrue, that the sale was effected for discharging binding debts, that they-were in fact -paid off, that Rs. 700 was a fair price and that the plaintiff's...
In Re: K.S. Rathinam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad35; (1937)2MLJ749
ORDERNewsam, J.1. This is a petition asking the Court to quash security proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram against the two petitioners who are mirasidars and residents of Manigramam.2. By an order dated 21st November, 1936, the petitioners were called upon to show cause why they should not furnish security for their good behaviour for two years. The order stated that it was based on information that they habitually committed the offences of extortion, mischief, theft and assault and were so dangerous and desperate as to render their being at large, without security, hazardous to the community. It purported in fact to be made under els. (a), (d), (e) and (f) of Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of the information given to the Magistrate was set out in an appendix consisting of 21 heads of charge.3. One hundred and seventeen witnesses were cited to prove the information, twenty-four of these were examined between 9th December, 1936...
S. Parasurama Iyer Vs. R.V. Subburamachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad151
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff became a partner in the firm of the defendants and in course of time the number of partners increased until, at the time of bringing the suit in 1921, the number of partners was 96. The partnership then became converted into a joint stock company. The plaintiff, though one of the partners, was not allotted any shares in the newly formed company. He therefore brought a suit for a declaration that there had been a dissolution of the partnership, for the taking of accounts, and for recovery of his share capital and his share of the profits with interest thereon. The trial Court went into all the matters raised very fully and decided against the plaintiff. In appeal, the lower Appellate Court decided against the plaintiff on two technical grounds, without considering the allegations made by the plaintiff. It found that as the number of partners was more than 20, no suit could be filed and secondly, that in any event the suit could not be maintained as all the pa...
Dhurwas M. Venkatachalapathi Iyer, Lakshmana Iyer Sons Vs. City Cinema ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad225
King, J.1. This appeal is concerned with the lease of a site in Madura by the plaintiff to a Cinematograph Company and with the liability of the latter to pay certain Municipal taxes. Plaintiff claims refund of certain taxes paid on the ground that the liability to pay them rests upon defendant. The agreement between the parties is contained in a lease deed of 4th November 1927. On an interpretation of the terms of this agreement, the two Courts below have come to different conclusions, the learned District Judge holding against the plaintiff. In view of the discussion which is to follow, it is unnecessary for me to discuss this point in detail or to say more than that I agree with the interpretation given by the learned District Judge. A much more important point however follows and that is a plea of res judicata raised by plaintiff. This plea was accepted by the learned District Munsif but rejected by the learned District Judge. The facts are as follows: A previous suit was filed by ...
Mookan Servai Vs. Muthayya Servai (Deceased) Rakayye L.R. of the Decea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad146; (1938)1MLJ63
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The defendant, holding a power-of-attorney from his sister Muthathal, executed in favour of the plaintiff an agreement to give an othi in respect of his sister's property, in consideration of Rs. 240 received by him (defendant) on the date of the agreement. The defendant not having executed the othi, the plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance against the defendant, or, in the alternative, for the recovery of the money paid by him to the defendant. It is not now disputed that the defendant received the money.2. Both the Courts held that the suit for specific performance will not lie. The only question for decision in the second appeal is, whether the defendant is personally liable to pay the money received by him. On this point the 1st Court held that he was personally liable, but this decision was reversed by the appellate Court. In the second appeal it is argued that the lower Court's decision is wrong and that it should be he...
C.R. Padmanabha Aiyar Vs. the Coimbatore Municipality Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad282; (1938)1MLJ99
1. The only substantial question in this second appeal is whether the levy of property tax in respect of the plaintiff's house for 1926-1927 by the defendant Municipality is legal. The material facts bearing on this question are not in dispute. A quinquennial revision was undertaken by the Municipality in 1926-1927 in pursuance whereof a tax of Rs. 9-6-0 instead of the old tax of Rs. 5-1-7 was levied in respect of the plaintiff's house and a demand therefor made. The plaintiff preferred a Revision Petition against the said assessment and there was a disposal of the said Revision Petition in his favour by a reduction of the valuation from Rs. 324 to Rs. 250. The result of this revision will be that the tax of Rs. 9-6-0 will have to be modified and before appropriate proceedings either by way of distress or suit can be taken against the plaintiff, the provisions of the rules prescribed by the statute must be complied with. Under Rule 13 of Schedule IV of the District Municipalities Act:I...
Matam Nadipudi Koti Veeraya Alias Sambhudevara Alias Sambhu Swamulavar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad810; (1938)2MLJ85
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Appeal No. 144 of 1932 - In this appeal the Court is called upon to decide whether a mutt in the village of Chebrole, Guntur District, is a mutt within the purview of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 and as such is liable to make an annual contribution to the funds of the Board of Commissioners appointed under the Act. The appellants claim that the mutt does not constitute a public religious endowment. They say that it is entirely private in its nature and therefore it cannot be called upon in law to make any contribution. The Board having decided that the mutt is liable to make an annual payment, the suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur for a declaration to the effect that the Board has no right to make a levy. The learned Judge agreed with the Board and dismissed the suit.2. The appellants are brothers and are members of the sect known as Jangams or Vira Saivas...
Varisaimuthu Chettiar and ors. Vs. Samimuthu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad55
ORDERLeach, C.J.1. This petition raises the question whether an award in arbitration proceedings without the intervention of the Court requires registration before it can be filed in Court. In O.S. No. 19 of 1927 of the Court of the District Munsif, Paramakudi, the respondents sued to recover possession of certain immovable property. During the pendency of the suit, the parties agreed to refer their differences to arbitration, and did so. When they came before the arbitrator it was agreed that he should also settle disputes between them relating to three other pieces of land. The arbitrator in due course gave his award which decided the questions of ownership of the four parcels of land. The award was then filed in Court with a view to its being made a decree. Objections were however raised by the respondents who took advantage of the fact that the award dealt with matters outside the scope of the suit. District Munsif decided that the award could be made a decree of the Court, but onl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »