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.
S.A. Subramanyam Chettiar and anr. Vs. K.G. Ethirajulu Chettiar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad325; (1938)1MLJ249
Horwill, J.1. The appellants mortgaged the property in question to the respondents. The respondents obtained a decree; but because of the various applications that the appellants made in this Court and other tactics that they adopted, the sale has not taken place even now. The respondents thereupon put in an application for the appointment of a Receiver and a Receiver was appointed. Certain allowances were given to the appellants for their expenses; and they were allowed to remain in possession of that part of one of the houses in which they lived. Subsequently, the present order was passed ordering them to vacate that part of the house also, because the Receiver was unable to realise any rent for the benefit of the mortgagees. Hence this appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants places reliance on Anandi Lal v. Ram Swarup : AIR1936All495 , a Full Bench case of that Court. Their Lordships in that case came to the conclusion that although the first part of Order 40, Rule 1 was wi...
The Canteen Contractors Syndicate Ltd. Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad70; 173Ind.Cas.313; (1937)2MLJ809
Brun, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, Madras, under Rule 17 of the Taxation Rules in Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Act. The points submitted for decision are:(1) Whether the appellant company's depot at Madras is liable to be assessed to pay companies' tax under Rule 7, part II, Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Act, and(2) if such a tax can be levied, whether the assessment should be made under the proviso to the above mentioned rule?2. The appellant company is entitled 'The Canteen Contractors Syndicate, Limited'. It is a limited liability company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The members of the company are Canteen Contractors approved by the Army Department and the objects with which the company was formed were, mainly, the purchase overseas of all kinds of supplies required for the troops in India and the distribution of those supplies to the contractors (who also have to be approved by the Army Department...
T.K. Balasubramania Chettiar Vs. A.M. Manickam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad429
Gentle, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff is seeking a decree for some Rs. 16,000 odd against two defendants. The two defendants are father 'and son and are a joint family. Mr. Rajagopalan has appeared for defendant 1, the father, and, if I may say so, has most ably argued all matters arising on behalf of his client and with refreshing brevity. The defence is now so far as both defendants are concerned one of limitation and limitation only. At one time it was on behalf of defendant 2 suggested that debt was incurred by his father, defendant 1, in matters arising out of speculation and wagering. That was dissipated very quickly when the evidence which was called on behalf of defendant 2 was given from the witness box.2. It is necessary for me to refer to a number of dates and circumstances going back prior to the year 1917. Defendant 1 carried on business as a yarn merchant and the plaintiff had an interest in that business of four annas. The profits there from at one period were very lar...
Kella Peda Appayya and ors. Vs. Lanka Narasimhalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad338
Horwill, J.1. The defendants have been found by the lower Appellate Court to have dug a channel through a part of the village site, and that portion of the channel which passes through the village site also runs in front of the house of the plaintiffs and lies between their house and the well. The plaintiffs have therefore brought this suit on behalf of the village community for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to block up that part of the channel. Which lies within the village site. The only point argued in appeal is whether the suit is maintainable. I do not think there can, be any doubt that the plaintiffs can have no cause of action unless they suffered special damage from the construction of this channel; and I do not consider that the construction of this channel is anything more than a common nuisance. It seems to me equally clear that the only manner in which a common nuisance can be abated is for a suit to be brought Under Section 91, Civil P.C. with the permiss...
Madana Palo and ors. Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowments Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad98; 173Ind.Cas.42; (1937)2MLJ830
Alfred Henry Ltonel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the Court below. They claim that the first appellant is the Board, hereditary trustee of the Sri Radhakanta Mahaprabho temple of Bhavanipur. By an order dated 16th October, 1928, the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments framed a scheme for the management of this temple under the provisions of Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927. In spite of contentions by the appellants to the contrary the Board refused to recognise the temple as being an excepted temple within the meaning of Section 9(5) of the Act and rejected the claim set up by the appellants that their family possessed the hereditary right of appointing a member as trustee of the temple. On this basis the Board decided that there should be a council of three trustees and placed the management of the temple in the hands of this council. No member of the appellants' family was, however, appointed to this council of trus...
Chinta Venkata Sundara Venugopalaswamy Vs. the President of the Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad214; (1937)2MLJ876
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal and the connected Revision Petition arise out of an application made to the District Judge of Ganjam under Section 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The Board had held that the temple in question to be a public temple and the petition was filed to have that declaration set aside. As it has been held that this Court can deal with this matter only under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and that no appeal lies against the decision of the District Court on such applications, it is not open to us to review the learned judge's findings of fact. But we cannot help thinking that in the present case, the conclusion of the learned District Judge has been arrived at on the basis of some erroneous assumption of law and without sufficient realisation of the importance of coming to a definite conclusion as to whether at one time the temple was a private temple or not.2. We do not wish to say anything which will hamper the lower Court in coming to its ...
President, District Board Vs. Koneru Lakshmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ391
Horwill, J.1. The District Board of Kistna has brought these suits against the defendants, who are motor bus proprietors for a permanent injunction restraining them from plying their motor cars on the roads of the District Board of Kistna without a licence, and for recovery of licence fees or damages from the defendants for running their respective motor vehicles without licences. The District Munsiff of Masulipatam discussed the various points of law that arose in a very elaborate judgment and came to the conclusion that the District Board was not entitled to an injunction, that they were not entitled to the recovery of licence fees as such; but that there was nothing in law to prevent the District Board from recovering damages for damage to their roads; and he has assessed the damages on the basis of the licence fees which the defendants did not pay. The District Judge, while agreeing with the trial Judge that the suit was maintainable, held that the action of the District Board in g...
Kambham Kaveri Rangiah Chetty and ors. Vs. Khaji Syed Hassumiah and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad305; (1938)2MLJ165
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal arises out of a dispute between the Muhammadans and the Hindus of Muddanur in the Cuddappah District, the Hindus being the plaintiffs who sued fora declaration of their right to carry in procession their idols with the usual accompaniments through the public streets of the village attended with music and also their right to go in' procession on occasions of marriage, etc., with music. The suit was one of the usual type that comes to Courts now and then when the two rival communities claim protection from each other and cannot bring themselves to respect each other's feelings. The law is fairly well-settled as regards the rights of the different communities in this matter and the rights which the law will recognise and declare have been clearly laid down from Muthialu Chetti v. Bapun Saib I.L.R. (1880) Mad. 140 onwards. It is enough to refer to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Manzur Hasan v. Muhammad Zaman (1924) 45 M.L.J. 23 : L.R. 52 IndAp 61 :...
In Re: Annum Kesanna Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad29; (1937)2MLJ741
ORDERNewsam, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question as to the scope and meaning of certain sections in the Madras Gaming Act (III of 1930). A 'common gaming house' is defined as a place where cards or other instruments of gaming are kept for the profit of the person who owns or occupies the place. In other words it is a place open to all comers for gambling purposes and run by some person for profits either by hiring the room or by hiring the cards, etc. The persons punishable under the Act are the keeper or owner of such aplace and persons who frequent such a place for gaming. Gaming in a private house or in a club is not an offence punishable under this Act. Section 9 of the Act contains a pre sumption that anyone found in a common gaming house during gaming was there for the purpose of gaming. Section 7 states that a man may be convicted of keeping a 'common gaminghouse' even though it be not proved that anyone played for money in that place. These two sections clearly sh...
President, District Board, Kistna, Masulipatam Vs. Keneru Lakshmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad227
Horwill, J.1. The District Board of Kistna has brought these suits against the defendants who are motor bus proprietors for a permanent injunction restraining them from plying their motor cars on the roads of the District Board of Kistna without a license, and for recovery of license fees or damages from the defendants for running their respective motor vehicles without licenses. The District Munsif of Masulipatam discussed the various points of law that arose in a very elaborate judgment and came to the conclusion that the District Board was not entitled to an injunction, that they were not entitled to the recovery of license fees as such; but that there was nothing in law to prevent the District Board from recovering damages for damage to their roads; and he has assessed the damages on the basis of the license fees which the defendants did not pay. The District Judge, while agreeing with the trial Judge that the suit was maintainable, held that the action of the District Board in gra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »