Chennai Court March 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.
Govindaraja Pillai Vs. Vanchinatham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad492; (1939)1MLJ561
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant sued the respondent in the District Court of Trichinopoly for damages for malicious prosecution. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the complaint did not justify the institution of criminal proceedings. The learned District Judge here erred and for reasons which I shall state the case must be remanded to the District Court for disposal according to law.2. There is no doubt that in 1928 enmity did exist between the appellant and the respondent and had existed for a considerable time. The appellant is the Village Munsif of Elayaperumanallur, and the respondent is his cousin residing in the same village. In the house of the appellant is a family idol and at certain seasons of the year offerings are made by the villagers to this idol. These offerings are divided among nine sharers, representing three branches of the appellant's family. The respondent is one of the sharers. Whether the division of these offerings ...
M.J. Sheth and Co., by Its Power-of-attorney Agent K.N. Abdul Rahiman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad646; (1938)1MLJ769
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Munsiff of Vellore dismissing an application made by the plaintiff for the issue of a commission to examine his witnesses residing at Bangalore. The District Munsiff has passed a very perfunctory order and has really not applied his mind to the grounds mentioned by the plaintiff in his affidavit. He has chosen to dismiss the application, as it appears to have been urged before him that the number of witnesses to be examined on commission was large and it would be rather expensive for the plaintiff to bring them down to Vellore. Had the District Munsiff taken the trouble to read the affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, he would have found a clear statement in paragraph 4 that his witnesses were permanent residents of Bangalore within the native state of Mysore, and that they could not be compelled to go to Vellore to give evidence in the case. It is true that in that paragraph a further ground was ad...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kuzikkal Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1938
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ800
Burn, J.1. These are appeals preferred by the Government from the judgment of the learned Joint Magistrate of Pollachi in C.A. Nos. 14 to 21 of 1937. Those appeals were from the decisions of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Pollachi, who convicted several persons of an offence under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act for violating Rule 30(a)(1)(i) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules. The facts in each case were that lorries had been engaged at Calicut to deliver bags of grain at Pollachi. In some cases the owners of the lorries alone were prosecuted; in other cases both the owners and the drivers were prosecuted. They were all convicted by the learned Stationary SUD-Magistrate. The owners were sentenced to fines of Rs. 50 and the drivers to fines of Rs. 20. On appeal the learned Joint Magistrate found it established that these lorries had been engaged for hire at Calicut and he said it was not disputed that the owners of them had not obtained permits in form G as required by Rule 30 (...
Ramachandra Madhavadoss Co. by Partner K. Raghunatha Mallayya Vs. Moov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad707; (1938)2MLJ112
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question which I have been called upon to decide in this revision relates to the correctness of the order passed by the District Munsif of Mangalore who, in view of an objection raised on behalf of the defendant, refused to entertain the suit on the ground that being one for accounts it was barred under Article 31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. The suit was, as the plaint would show, for a specific sum of money which was alleged to be due to the plaintiff by the defendant in regard to certain dealings mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The District Munsif examined the plaintiff and finding that four heads of accounts were clubbed together in a single katha maintained by the plaintiff firm in its books, out of which two only could be properly recovered on the Small Cause Side, returned the whole plaint for presentation to the proper Court.3. Having heard the Counsel for the parties at some length, I am clearly of the opinion t...
Tetali Sooramma Vs. Kovvuri Venkayya (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad589; (1938)1MLJ806
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the suit is upon a mortgage executed by the first defendant. The substantial defence to the suit was that the plaintiff was not entitled to ask for the sale of one of the items of the property, namely, Survey No. 172/2, on the ground that the property actually described in the deed of mortgage as having been mortgaged was only 172/4. The plaintiff in his plaint stated that the description 172/4 was a mistake for 172/2 and that if necessary the mortgage deed might be rectified by inserting 172/2 in the place of 172/4. But the substantial relief he prayed for in the plaint was the sale of 172/2 on the basis of the mortgage. One of the defences raised was that the prayer for rectification was barred by limitation because it was asked for after more than three years had elapsed from the date when the mistake came to the plaintiff's knowle...
(Mrs.) M. Bulteel Vs. (Mr.) R.C. Bulteel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad721; (1938)1MLJ821
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner was married to the respondent in the Nilgiris on the 23rd April, 1932, and lived with him as his wife until February, 1936. A daughter was born of the marriage. In February, 1936, the respondent left India for England and has not returned to India. He has neglected to provide for the maintenance of his wife and child and on the 6th July, 1937, the petitioner was compelled to file an application in the Court of the District Magistrate of the Nilgiris at Ootacamund for an order directing the respondent to pay a monthly sum for their maintenance. The amount asked for was Rs. 350 per mensem. The petitioner also asked that steps be taken under the Maintenance Orders Enforcements Act, 1921, with a view to the Magistrate's order being confirmed by the proper authority in England.2. The application was dealt with by the Magistrate on the date of filing. He held that inasmuch as the petitioner had asked for an order for a sum of Rs. 350 he had no...
The Sree Meenakshi Mills Co., Ltd., Represented by Mr. K. Thiagaraja C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad640; (1938)1MLJ856
ORDERBurn, J.1. The conviction of the company was in my opinion correct. Section 76(1) of the Companies Act requires a general meeting to be held once at least in every year. The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that since the general meeting called on 30th December, 1934, was adjourned to 31st March, 1935, and was held on that date, it follows that general meeting was held in 1934 and in 1935, and the general meeting held on the 28th January, 1936, was within 15 months of 31st March, 1935. This is specious, but unsound. It can be reduced to absurdity in a moment. If it were correct a general meeting held in 1934 could be adjourned to 1935 and again adjourned to 1936 arid so on without limit. But that would obviously not satisfy Section 76. Section 76 demands that there shall be a general meeting held once at least in every year, that is, one meeting per year, and as many meetings as there are years. It does not mean that the same meeting can go on being held once in-each year....
Alagar Raja and anr. Vs. Narayana Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad757; (1938)1MLJ882
ORDERStodart, J.1. The question for decision in this petition arises in connection with a second appeal the parties to which have reported compromise in the matter. The petitioners whose petition I shall describe presently have applied to be brought on the record and to defend the second appeal in lieu of the respondent in the appeal. They claim to be entitled to do this under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, namely, on the ground that they have acquired an interest in the subject-matter of the suit which is in danger of being injured by the proposed compromise of their transferor, the respondent. The facts of the case are as follows: - The plaintiff in this suit had three successive mortgages on the same items of property, namely, S. No. 80 measuring 93 cents, S. No. 79 measuring 17 cents, and another piece of land and a house. These two latter items are not particularly specified in the pleadings and their identity is not of any importance. The plaintiff in the suit, as I hav...
V.M. Ahmad Maraikayar Vs. V.N. Thangiah Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1938
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ760
Burn, J.1. Both the lower Courts have clearly lost sight of Section 42(1)(a) of the Provincial Insolvency Act which peremptorily requires the Court to refuse an absolute order of discharge:Unless the insolvent satisfies the court that the fact that the assets are not of a value equal to eight annas in the rupeehas arisen from circumstances for which he cannot justly be held responsible.2. In this case it is admitted that the assets did not realise eight annas in the rupee. Neither the learned Subordinate Judge nor the learned District Judge has expressed himself as satisfied in the manner required by Section 42(1)(a). On the contrary, the Official Receiver reported that there was no evidence whether the deficiency was due to circumstances for which the debtor could not justly be held responsible. This means simply that the debtor did not discharge the burden laid on him by Section 42(1)(a). The learned District Judge appears to have fallen into the error of supposing that there was a b...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. M.S. Krishnamurthi Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad712; (1938)1MLJ815
Burn, J.1. The respondents were tried in C.C. No. 823 of 1936 on the file of the Stationary. Sub-Magistrate, Mayavaram, for offences under Section 7(1)(a) and (c) of the Land Customs Act. The facts found against them by the learned Sub-Magistrate were that on the 16th November, 1936, they were caught at Mayavaram Railway Station. They were both travelling in the train which arrived at Mayavaram at 11-5 P.M. from Tiruvalur. The first respondent alighted from a carriage which runs through from Karaikal to Pondicherry carrying what is described as a 'rattan box'. The second respondent alighted from the next carriage. They met upon the platform and the first respondent handed the rattan box to the second and both were going together along the platform when they were detained by a Land Customs Sub-Inspector (P.W. 1). On examination the box was found to contain twenty-five yards of silk shirting and 96 watches of Swiss manufacture. These had been smuggled in from Karaikkal by the first respo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »