Chennai Court February 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.
S.A. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. S.N. Alagappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad711; (1938)1MLJ793
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Devakottah, dated 29th March, 1937, directing that the adjournment prayed for by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 183 of 1928 before him should be granted only on condition of the plaintiff paying as costs the sum of Rs. 8,979-5-4 to the first defendant. The claim in the suit was no doubt valued at about Rs. 6 lakhs, but it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that even in spite of the fact that the plaintiff valued the claim at Rs. 6 lakhs, the amount of costs ordered to be paid as a condition of the adjournment is excessive if not illegal. He relies on the words of Order 17, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, which gives the Court power to make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment. According to him this rule does not entitle the Court to demand payment of the entire costs of the suit incurred up to the date on which the adjournment is asked for...
In Re: Nondi Alias Chinnaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad653; (1938)1MLJ761
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tittagudi found the accused guilty of theft in two cases, C.C. Nos. 120 and 121 of 1934 on his file. As he thought that the accused should be dealt with under the Borstal Act he referred the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Chidambaram for orders under Section 8 of that Act. The accused was already under sentence of detention in a Borstal School for three years upon an order passed on the 24th February, 1934; and he was serving that sentence when the matter came before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for orders in C.C. Nos. 72 and 73 of 1934. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order that the accused should be detained in a Borstal School for a period of one year in each case, the two sentences to run consecutively and to take effect after the expiry of the three years' sentence passed on 24th February, 1934.2. If the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had read Section 8 of the Borstal Act before passing his order, he would have seen...
S. Girdharilal Son and Co. Vs. B. Kappini Gowder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad688; (1938)2MLJ44
Varadachariar, J.1. I agree with Pandrang Row, J., that the present suit is maintainable and that the objection based on Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act must be overruled. The arguments that can be urged in favour of one view or the other have been fully set out in the judgments delivered by my learned brothers; it is therefore not necessary for me to deal with every one of them in detail or with the several decisions referred to in their judgments.2. The relevant facts and dates are: The promissory note sued on was executed on 12th March, 1931, the Partnership Act except Section 69 came into force on 1st October, 1932, Section 69 came into force on 1st October, 1933, and this suit was filed in August, 1934. On these facts, the question arises, whether the plaintiffs who admittedly constitute a firm but had not got themselves registered before the date of the institution of the suit are entitled to maintain the suit. If the matter were wholly res Integra it may be open to argument...
Gaddipati Venkayya Vs. Chunduru Sambayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad808; (1938)2MLJ93
Pandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner is one of the creditors in the insolvency of one Chunduri Sambayya (I.P. No. 77 of 1931 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali). He applied on the 9th July, 1937, under Section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936, praying that all further proceedings in the insolvency may be stayed pending disposal of his application to the Debt Conciliation Board. The application was dismissed by the Sub-Judge on the ground that the application of the petitioner to the Conciliation Board was itself prohibited by Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and therefore his application for stay of the insolvency proceedings was incompetent. It is argued that this view of the Subordinate Judge is not according to law but I am not satisfied that the objections to that view are well founded.2. Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act says:When an application has been made to a Board under Section 4, any suit or other proceedings then pending befor...
Mask and Co. and anr. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad608
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of excess customs duty paid by the plaintiffs Under protest and raises a question as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with a matter of this kind. This point as to jurisdiction was raised by Issue 3 and was tried as a preliminary issue in the Court below. As the learned Subordinate Judge held against the plaintiffs on this question, he dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. The following are the relevant facts: The plaintiffs are merchants carrying on business in the South Arcot District under the name of 'Mask and Co.' and towards the end of 1932 and in the course of 1933, they imported several consignments of betelnuts from Java. The consignments were landed in Pondicherry and had to be brought to British India across the land frontier there. To avoid delay in doing so, they put themselves in communication with the customs authorities but as there was a dispute between them as to the corr...
Ayinan Chettiar and ors. Vs. K.R. Ramaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad945; (1938)2MLJ482
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is property which admittedly once belonged to one Ramachandra Aiyar. In O.S. No. 5 of 1905 a money decree was obtained against Ramachandra Aiyar. In 1910 Ramachandra Aiyar died. By 1915 the rights of the decree-holder had passed to the present 1st defendant. The suit property was sold in execution of the decree at defendant l's instance on 11th July, 1917 and was purchased by one Venkatarama Aiyar who obtained delivery through Court on 3rd February, 1918. In June, 1918, Venkatarama Aiyar sold the property to defendant 2 from whom some years later defendants 3, 4 and 5 obtained mortgage rights. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff on 1st February, 1930, claiming to be the adopted son of Ramachandra Aiyar, for the recovery of the property on the ground that the sale in 1917 having been held in proceedings to which he was not a party did not bind him, and was null and void in that the estate of his father Ramachandra Aiyar was not prop...
S.Rm.M.Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Late a Minor by Guardian Muthayi Achi A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad865; (1938)2MLJ534
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 5 against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in O.S. No. 1 of 1929.2. The plaintiff in the suit is H.H. The Maharatta Thakore Sahib of Limbdi. In the appeal the question is raised as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sale of the suit properties in enforcement of an alleged sub-mortgage of an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, granted to him by the third defendant of the suit properties. These, called the Vadavoor lands, are situate in the Trichinopoly District. These and various other properties situated in Madras and Bangalore belonged to Messrs. Tawker & Sons, a well-known firm of jewellers in Madras. They mortgaged the title-deeds of all these properties to Messrs. Nagarseth & Sons, the third defendant in the present suit, in 1916 for a sum of over 18 lakhs of rupees borrowed from time to time for carrying on their family business. Exs. M, M-1 and M-2 are the documents which were deposited ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›