Chennai Court December 1938 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.
irukulapati Venkateswara Rao, Styling Himself as Kannaganti Venkateswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad561; (1939)1MLJ493
Varadachariar, J.1. The second defendant appeals against a preliminary decree for sale passed by the lower Court on foot of a mortgage-deed (Ex. A) executed on 10th March, 1926, by the first defendant for himself and as guardian of his then minor son the second defendant. The mortgage deed had been executed to secure repayment of a sum of Rs. 10,000 made up of Rs. 2,429-3-3 then due to the plaintiff himself on promissory notes that had been executed by the first defendant and of a sum of Rs. 7,570-12-9 recited to have been received in cash by the first defendant for discharging debts that had been contracted by him from others. The first defendant contended that Ex. A was supported by consideration only to the extent of Rs. 2,429-3-3 and that as regards the balance, the statement of cash payment in Ex. A was not true and that the understanding between the parties was that the document should serve as security for any amounts for which the plaintiff might ultimately become liable in con...
In Re: A.T. Kava
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad524; (1939)1MLJ700
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of motor lorry S.K. 1089 registered for private trade purposes and he has been convicted under Section 174(a) of the District Municipalities Act read with Section 313(1) for using the lorry on the public streets in the Municipality of Mangalore without requisite license for a motor lorry plying for hire.2. The lorry of the petitioner was hired out for transporting coffee-husk from Chickmagalur to Mangalore on 2nd and 9th September, 1937, and it was used for that purpose on those occasions on the public streets in the Municipality of Mangalore. The lorry was obviously a lorry plying for hire though it was registered for private trade purposes, and the petitioner had no licence for a motor lorry plying for hire as required by Section 174(a) of the District Municipalities Act. The section provides that no person shall use any motor lorry on any public street in any municipality except on a licence obtained from the executive authority, ...
The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd. Vs. P.S. Pushpammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad774; (1939)2MLJ434
1. The decision of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court is correct. The appellant sold the property to the respondent and Section 55(3) of the Transfer of Property Act is clear and unambiguous. The mortgage deed, it is contended, is not a document of title, but no authority is cited in support of this proposition. Since the appellant sold the property to the respondent in the exercise of the power of sale conferred upon him by the terms of the deed of mortgage, the deed is clearly a document of title. The appellant must therefore surrender the deed to the respondent, however inconvenient it may be.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: Avidi Veerasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad257
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the servant of a gun licensee and the Sub-Inspector found the gun of his master with him. The explanation is that he was merely carrying the gun to the house of the master under his orders and the conviction of the petitioner under Section 19(f), Arms Act, cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
South Indian General Assurance and Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad623
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The complaints were sought to be withdrawn against some of the accused and the Magistrate acquitted them. There was no formal withdrawal of the complaint and as pointed out in Anantia v. Emperor (1924) 11 A.I.R. Lah. 595 , in which all the decisions were considered, there is nothing in Section 248 which involves a withdrawal of the whole complaint merely because the complaint is withdrawn as against some of the accused. There is therefore no substance in these petitions and they are dismissed....
Ninkileri Lakshmikutty Kettilamma Vs. thekka Madathi Vishnu Nambisan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad411; (1939)1MLJ261
Varadachariar, J.1. The only question for decision in this Miscellaneous Appeal is whether certain insurance policy amount which has been sought to be attached by the respondent decree-holder can be held to be 'assets' of the late Kerala Varma Raja in the hands of the appellant.2. The appellant is the widow of Kerala Varma Raja. The policy in question was an endowment policy obtained by the deceased in 1927 and was payable on the 5th April, 1952, or on the death of the assured earlier. On the 3rd July, 1933, the assured assigned this policy by an endorsement on the policy itself. This assignment was duly communicated to the insurance company and there registered, though as usual the company guarded itself from admitting the validity of the assignment. The assured died in 1933 and the decree under execution was passed against the appellant as his legal representative. The question does not now arise between the company and the assignee but between the assignee and a person who has obtai...
Vadavalli Narasimha Rao and ors. Vs. V. Ayyanna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad794; (1939)1MLJ445
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Ellore, of an offence under Section 430, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. On appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ellore, confirmed the conviction but reduced the fine to Rs. 25 each. This revision petition is preferred by the accused, who contend that the conviction under Section 430, Indian Penal Code, was wrong.2. The facts are simple. The accused hold lands under a tank which receives its supply from a channel called the Dendulur channel. The complainant in this case was the holder of land irrigated from another tank which also receives its supply from the same channel, but the supply channel to the accused's tank takes off from the main channel at a point higher up than the supply channel of the complainant's tank. In these circumstances on the 2nd August, 1937, the accused put a bund across the main channel just below the point at which the supply channel to their tank ...
Kurella Ramamurti Alias Sreeramulu and anr. Vs. Nalam Subbarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad481; (1939)1MLJ491
Pandrang Row, J.1. The only point that arises in this case is whether the stipulation for payment of compound interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum found in the suit mortgage deed is in the nature of a penalty and ought to be relieved against. The mortgage deed provided that the sum of Rs. 2,000 which was borrowed thereunder should be repaid in eight annual instalments of Rs. 250 each, such instalments to count both towards principal as well as interest on the entire sum. The stipulation that is objected to runs as follows:And that in default of payment of sums due in any instalment, the sum remaining unpaid on that date shall be added to the principal and the entire amount become payable at once irrespective of future instalments, the entire sum carrying interest at 1 per cent, per mensem compound with yearly rests.2. There was, as it were, a double penalty put upon any default in payment of the annual instalments, namely, the entire sum will become immediately repayable irre...
Krishnamachari Vs. Chengalraya Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ469
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The main question raised by the appellant in this appeal is whether an application for restitution made on the 13th November, 1925, in consequence of an order passed on appeal on the 9th July, 1924, and returned by the Court on the ground that an order of an interim injunction restraining the applicant from recovering the amount deposited by him for costs was still in force is still undecided and should therefore be ordered to be proceeded with. Two more applications for restitution were presented by the appellant in 1928 and in 1934. They will have to be incidentally considered but as the facts which are going to be stated will show, the decision of this appeal solely depends on the effect of the order passed on the application presented on the 13th November, 1925.2. A preliminary decree for sale instead of redemption of a usufructuary mortgage was passed by a mistake on the 8th November, 192? and costs were ordered to be paid by all the defendants, who were five in...
Krishnamachari Vs. Chengalaraya Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad281
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The main question raised by the appellant in this appeal is whether an application for restitution made on 13th November 1925, in consequence of an order passed on appeal on 9th July 1924, and returned by the Court on the ground that an order of an interim injunction restraining the applicant from recovering the amount deposited by him for costs was still in force is still undecided and should therefore be ordered to be proceeded with. Two more applications for restitution were presented by the appellant in 1928 and in 1934. They will have to be incidentally considered but as the facts which are going to be stated will show, the decision of this appeal solely depends on the effect of the order passed on the application presented on 13th November 1925. A preliminary decree for sale instead of redemption of a usufructuary mortgage was passed by a mistake on 8th November 1922 and costs were ordered to be paid by all the defendants, who were five in number, to the plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »