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.
Municipal Council Vs. Muhammad Ismail Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad90
Leach, C.J.1. In this appeal the Court is called upon to interpret the provisions of Section 69, Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, as amended by the Act of 1933. At a public auction held in 1927 at the instance of the Municipal Council of Dharapuram the respondent purchased the right of collecting the tolls to be levied on all vehicles entering the municipal area during the year commencing 1st April 1927. His bid was Rs. 47,800, which he agreed to pay in 12 equal installments on the 15th of each month. He further agreed to pay a penalty of Rs. 2 per diem for every day in respect of which he was in default in payment. He did not however observe the conditions of the contract. His payments were irregular and he did not complete them. Altogether he paid to the Municipal Council a sum of Rs. 37,820-3-0, which meant that he was in default to the extent of Rs. 9,979-13-0, apart from the penalties for which the contract stipulated. Nothing turns on the question of the validity of the ...
In Re: S.T. Nambi Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad143; (1937)2MLJ812
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. This application by the Official Assignee relates to a difficult and important question which is constantly arising in insolvency work, namely, how is an individual creditor, who is willing for a consideration to finance and indemnify the Official Assignee in an attack on an alleged fraudulent alienation, to be compensated for the risk which he runs, without offending against the principles on which the insolvency law is based. A former proposal that the financing creditor should be rewarded by having his debt paid in full in priority to the other creditors out of any amount that might be recovered was disapproved by Venkatasubba Rao, J., in the case of Puru-shothamdas & Bros., In re (1927) 55 M.L.T. 657 as being opposed to the policy of equal distribution of assets, though the then Chief Justice in the appeal from that decision (O.S. Nos. 100 of 1927 and 5 of 1928) observes that such an arrangement might be unobjectionable if the other creditors consented to it.2....
Sri. Venkataramanaswami Temple at Kanampalli by Its Present Trustee, K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad71; (1937)2MLJ893
Horwill, J.1. The question argued in this appeal is whether the practice that the Archaka should take the whole of the Hundi collections for his own maintenance expenses and for the expenses of the Pooja is an illegal practice opposed to public policy. The first Court, on the authority of Venkataramana Aiyangar v. Kasturiranga Aiyangar : (1916)31MLJ777 thought it was; but the appellate Court has thought that the more recent case Sri Mahant v. Govindacharlu (1934) 68 M.L.J. 295 shows that appropriation by Archakas of a fixed portion of the Hundi collections is not necessarily an illegal practice.2. Mr. Somayya has taken me through Venkataramana Aiyangar v. Kasturiranga Aiyangar : (1916)31MLJ777 at some length to try to satisfy me that the facts of that case fully resemble those in the present case; but it would appear that in Venkataramana Aiyangar v. Kasturiranga Aiyangar : (1916)31MLJ777 the Archakas at no time claimed a right to appropriate the Hundi collections except on the ground ...
Rathnaswami Moopanar and ors. Vs. R.C. Negaraja Moopanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad100; (1937)2MLJ871
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore awarding a sum of Rs. 12,942-8-3 in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was to recover arrears of rent on the basis of a lease, Ex. B, dated 25th December, 1920, executed by the first defendant in favour of one Seethalakshmi Ammal, the then proprietrix of Kapisthalam estate and the second and third defendants are the undivided father and brother of the first defendant. The said lease was to run for ten faslis commencing from Fasli 1333 to Fasli 1342. The lands comprised in the lease were about 59 acres 37 cents in the village of Sathyamangalam. Subsequent to the execution of this lease, on the 23rd September, 1925, the said Seethalakshmi Ammal gave a lease Ex. A in favour of the plaintiff of the whole of the Sathyamangalam village including the lands which had been leased under the prior lease of 1920. The latter lease was for ten faslis from Fasli 1335 to Fasli 1344 and was to comm...
Buchayyagari Ranga Reddy Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad177; (1937)2MLJ868
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to decide is whether the sale-deed impeached amounts to a fraudulent preference under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The material dates are these. The second respondent was adjudicated insolvent on 30th November, 1931, on a creditor's petition dated 8th August, 1931. The insolvent had executed the sale-deed in question on the 27th July, 1931, in favour of his nephew and son-in-law, the first respondent. On 9th July, 1932, the application, out of which this civil revision petition arises, was made by the Official Receiver for the setting aside of the sale-deed. The learned District Judge, reversing the decision of the trial Court, has held that the conveyance amounts to a# fraudulent preference. The first respondent, the transferee, questions the correctness of the District Judge's order.2. There is practically no dispute about the facts which may be shortly stated. In 1922, the second respondent was appointed guardian of the first under...
A.K.T.K.M. Narayanan Nambudripad Vs. Board of Commissioners for Hindu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad209
Varadachariar, J.1. By an order dated 3rd February 1936, we directed the trial Court to receive such additional evidence as the parties may tender as we were inclined to think that on account of some misapprehension, the whole available evidence had not been placed before the Court on the previous occasion. The learned District Judge has now admitted such evidence as the petitioner adduced, but as he thought that the additional evidence did not affect the substance of the previous judgment, he has stated that he considers it unnecessary to record a fresh finding. The additional evidence has not carried the petitioner very far. Part of it only serves to establish that the petitioner's family which is now living far away from the temple in question was at one time living within f mile or a mile of the temple. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on certain statements in the report of a Commissioner who was appointed by the lower Court to inspect the locality and make a re...
P.L.S.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. Y.P.R.Y.N.Y. Chidambaram Chettiar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad53; (1937)2MLJ737
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The petitioner seeks in this case to revise the orders passed by the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura on 3rd October, 1936, confirming those of Additional Sub-Judge of Devakottai who had permitted respondent No. 1 to amend his petition which he had presented to the Court on 3rd July, 1934, praying that the petitioner and other respondents to these proceedings be adjudged as insolvents.2. The petition has been very ably argued on behalf of the parties, and 1 have been called upon to satisfy myself whether the orders passed by both these Courts were according to law. Respondent No. 1 had in his petition for the adjudication of the petition and the remaining respondents, relied on certain acts of insolvency which were stated by him in para. 6 of his petition. I have examined para. 6 of the petition generally and para. 6(c) of the petition particularly, and am of the opinion that the transfers referred to in that clause were only those which were alleged to have been e...
Rahiman Bibi Saheba, by Agent Syed Yusuf Sahib Vs. Mahboob Bibi Saheba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad141; (1937)2MLJ753
Alfred Henry Ltonel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether a child of a marriage contracted by a Muhammadan with his wife's sister, the wife being alive, is legitimate. It also raises questions with regard to the right of certain parties to payments on account of mahar.2. The suit was filed by the appellant for the administration of the estate of her deceased father, Syed Mahmood Saheb, a Sunni Muhammadan, who died in Madras on the 17th July, 1930. There were ten defendants, a widow and the sons and daughters of the deceased. The first respondent is the widow. The appellant and the third respondent are the children of the deceased's first wife, who predeceased him. Respondents 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10 are the sons and daughters of the first respondent by the deceased. Respondents 4 and 9 are the children of the third wife, who also predeceased her husband. The seventh respondent is the son of the fifth wife, who survived the husband, but died before the suit was instituted. The...
Sivarama Aiyar Vs. Ahilambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad153; 175Ind.Cas.704; (1937)2MLJ789
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition against an order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dispaupering the plaintiff, under Order XXXIII, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground of his having entered into an agreement with one Manickatn Pillai with reference to the subject-matter of the suit. The execution of the agreement was admitted, but it was alleged that the agreement was neither in respect of the subject-matter of the suit, nor had any person obtained an interest in such subject-matter. After the agreement was produced by Manickam Piilai, the plaintiff alleged subsequently that the agreement was altered in material particulars after its execution, and that he did not know of such alteration until it was produced in Court. After recording evidence in the proceedings, the learned Subordinate Judge found it as a fact that the agreement was not altered. The petitioner now asked me to interfere with this finding on the ground that it is erroneo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›