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.
K.P.S. Karuthan Chettiar and anr. Vs. P. Ct. Chidambaram Chettiar (Die ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad725; (1938)2MLJ79
1. Appeal No. 411 of 1933 with Memorandum of Objections: - The appeal, and memorandum of objections arise out of a suit by the appellant against his agent for an account of his agency and recovery of the amount found due on the taking of the accounts. The agent died after filing the memorandum of objections and the legal representative has not chosen to appear. The memorandum of objections fails for that reason and the questions raised by the appeal are whether as held by the trial Court the agent is entitled to(1) a commission of four per cent, for collecting old outstandings;(2) ten per cent, of the net profits earned during the agency towards what is known as 'samans'.2. The claim was based on agreement and custom but as found by the trial Judge there is no satisfactory evidence of any agreement or custom to pay any commission for collecting old outstandings. The salary chit Ex. A fixes the remuneration of the agent and it requires him to carry on the firm business according to the ...
Sukkira Goundan and ors. Vs. Palani Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad666; (1938)1MLJ728
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The suit out of which this petition arises was filed by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul for the partition of the estate of a joint family of which he claimed to be a member. He valued the estate as a whole at Rs. 25,987 and his own share at Rs. 8,662-5-4. The petitioners who were defendants denied that the respondent was a coparcener, and their defence prevailed in the trial Court. On appeal to this Court, however, it was held that the respondent was a coparcener and was entitled to have delivered to him property of the value of Rs. 5,162-5-4. The petitioners challenge the correctness of this Court's judgment and wish to appeal to the Privy Council. The only question which falls for decision is whether the case falls within the second clause of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The section reads as follows:In each of t...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Soosai Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad715; (1938)1MLJ724
Horwill, J.1. The prosecution case was that the three counter-petitioners had been conducting a chit fund and had thus committed an offence punishable under Section 294-A, Indian Penal Code. As however, chit funds had been very common in Southern India and there had been some misapprehension as to the law governing them, Courts having held at one time that chit funds were not illegal, the Government thought it would be unduly hard on persons conducting chit funds if prosecution were forthwith launched against them. G.O. No. 2621, dated 14th September, 1934, was thereupon passed ordering the District Magistrate of Malabar to give wide publicity to the fact that such chit funds were illegal and to order those who were conducting them to wind them up as soon as possible, adding that prosecutions need not be launched unless there were indications of fraud. The counter-petitioners were ordered to wind up this chit fund and it appears that no drawing took place after the order was communicat...
Talla Lingamurthi Vs. Siddani Peda Mallayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad599; (1938)1MLJ757
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Mr. V. Suryanarayana has raised an interesting question as to the import of the expression 'holder in due course' occurring in the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondents are not represented but Mr. Suryanarayana has fairly placed before me all the relevant considerations. The petitioner (the plaintiff) is the assignee of the promissory note executed by the first and the second defendants. The lower Court has found as a fact that the payee of the note, that is, the plaintiff's assignor agreed to hold the first defendant alone liable and relinquished his claim as against the second defendant. There is a further finding of fact that when the note was assigned to the plaintiff, he was aware of this arrangement. Mr. Suryanarayana contends that the petitioner is nevertheless a holder in due course and is not affected by the infirmity attaching to th,e person from whom he took the transfer. The point to decide therefore is, is the petitioner entitled to a decree ag...
In Re: Ganti Veera Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad615
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners have been bound over Under Section 110(e) and (f), Criminal P.C. for habitually committing offences involving a breach of peace, to wit, attempts to rape, and they have also been deemed, by virtue of this habitual practice, to be desperate and dangerous members of a community, whom it is not safe to leave at large without furnishing security. This order was confirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary. It has been contended for the petitioners that attempts of rape do not involve a breach of the peace, that they are not desperate and dangerous to the community, and that it was illegal to try the three petitioners together. The principal case quoted before me from which it was sought to deduce that an attempt to commit rape does not involve a breach of the peace is Arun Samanta v. Emperor (1903) 30 Cal 366 In that case, the counter-petitioners were found to have been attempting to seduce women and of behaving obscenely towards them. It ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›