Chennai Court March 1939 Judgments
Mellepeddi Pitchamma Vs. Medabalimi Venkataramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad27
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. The suit out of which this revision arises was brought on the basis of a promissory note (Ex. A) executed by the defendant-petitioner on 20th November 1932 in favour of one Ratamma. It was indorsed on 20th June 1934 by the said Ratamma to her sister's son Venkataramayya Garu for collection. The indorsement (Ex. A-2) reads as follows:An order (transfer) has been made in favour of Venkataramayya Garu son of Gummadi Rattayya Garu, for collection of the principal and interest due on this note.2. Venkataramayya Garu instead of collecting the amount from the defendant indorsed the promissory note in favour of one Medabalimi Venkataramayya who happened to be the defendant's son-in-law. The endorsement contains a statement that Venkataramayya Garu has received a bull-calf and a sum of Rs. 110 from the indorsed to whom the hundi has been indorsed for collection. On the suit being instituted by Medabalimi Venkataramayya it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the...
Tag this Judgment!A.P.M. Syed Ibrahim Sahib and Brother Vs. V.S. Gurulinga Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad860; (1939)2MLJ489
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether Section 74 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which saves rights and remedies which existed before the Act came into force, should be read as being subordinate to Section 69(2), which requires a firm to be registered before instituting a suit to enforce rights, or whether Section 74 should prevail. The facts are simple. The appellant firm filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Vellore claiming from the respondent a sum of Rs. 846-13-2 with interest. The respondent was in the employ of the appellant firm and was given charge of a branch office. It was said that he had overdrawn his account to the extent of the amount claimed. The defence was that the respondent was entitled to a share in the profits of the firm and that if the profits were taken into account there was no indebtedness. The firm had not been registered under the provisions of Section 58 of the Partnership Act when the suit...
Tag this Judgment!N. Adinarayana Chetty Vs. T.T.K.K. Appan Srirangachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad217
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the subordinate Judge of Chittoor dated 14th August 1936 in Order Section No. 6 of 1934 on his file. The suit was one for recovery of the plaint property with past mesne profits after declaring that the usufructuary mortgage executed by the plain, tiff's deceased paternal uncle Srirangachari in favour of defendant l's adoptive father for Rs. 4440 on 17th July 1895 is void and not binding on the plaintiff. In the alternative, the plaintiff sued for redemption of that mortgage after taking an account of what was due to defendant 1, the mortgagee. The remaining two defendants are the natural father and brother of defendant 1 and they merely adopted the contentions of defendant 1. The plaint, which does not appear to have been carefully drafted, proceeds on the basis that the plaintiff and his paternal uncle were hereditary office-holders in the Thirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanams, the office being the office of Acharyapurusha, and that...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sundaresa Aiyar Vs. the Sarvajana Sowkiabivirdhi Nidhi Limited, by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ624
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Coimbatore for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of certain jewels. At the time of the suit the jewels were in possession of the Court of the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Coimbatore. No consequential relief was asked for, and the question which we are called upon to decide is whether the suit could be maintained in view of the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, which says that no Court shall make a declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. In 1932 the appellant was desirous of selling the jewels and he was approached by one SubbaRao who represented that he knew of a prospective purchaser. On the representation that the desired to show the jewels to the prospective purchaser the appellant handed them over to him. This was on the 3rd July, 1932. Having obtained possession of the...
Tag this Judgment!Govada Balabharathi Co-operative Credit Society, Represented by Its Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad932; (1940)2MLJ388
Somayya, J.1. Balabharathi Co-operative Credit Society of Govada had to get some money from one Ramatulasamma. The society, proceeded under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act of 1932 to recover the dues and an award was passed directing payment of the sum due. The award was being executed against the property of the debtor. At that stage, another creditor of the debtor who is the first respondent in this Civil Revision Petition filed I.P. No. 105 of 1934 to adjudicate Ramatulasamma as an insolvent and applied for the appointment of a receiver under Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The Subordinate Judge before whom the application was made rejected the application holding that the Co-operative Credit Society had a first charge upon the entire estate of the debtor. The matter was taken up on appeal, and the Districts Judge held that the Co-operative Society had no prior charge over the general estate of the debtor and that the prior charge refers only to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohona Ponda Vs. Raghunadha Das and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad888; (1939)2MLJ312
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises questions relating to the powers of the proprietor and the Revenue Divisional Officer in making appointments under Section 15 of the Madras Proprietary Estates Village-Service Act (IIofl894) in a case of re-grouping of existing villages. The plaintiff was a karnam of one of the villages affected by the re-grouping. In the new group the proprietor appointed the plaintiff, not as karnam, but as headman. He did not actually take office owing to the fact that when the report of the appointment was received, after some correspondence, the Revenue Divisional Officer set aside the appointment and, purporting to act under Section 11(2) of the Act, appointed the first defendant who admittedly was qualified for the appointment. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the appointment of the first defendant was illegal. The suit was decreed in the trial Court. But before the appeal against this decision was heard, the proprietor on the basis of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Alasyam Ramappa Vs. Panyam Thirumalappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad884; (1939)2MLJ649
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant's father, one Nattekalappa, the first respondent's brother Yarikalappa, and the second respondent carried on business in partnership from 1892 until 3rd May, 1904, when a dissolution took place, During the existence of the partnership certain immovable properties were purchased out of the profits of the business. One lot comprising four items was purchased in the name of the appellant's father and another lot comprising three items was purchased in the names of the appellant's father and the first respondent's brother. On the dissolution it was agreed that the immovable properties should not be divided among the partners, but should be held by them as joint tenants with equal rights. The terms of the dissolution were set out in full in the firm's daybook and the statement (Ex. A) was signed by all the partners. The appellant's father died in 1921 and the first respondent's brother in 1918. The immovable properties eventually came into the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Boya Latchmakka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad294
Stodart, J.1. The referred trial and the appeal relate to the case of one Latchmakka, a woman of 30, who has been sentenced to death for the murder of her new born infant. The appellant had left her husband two years ago and at the time of the crime, she was living in a house two doors from his. Her husband's mother, P.W. 3, is the only material witness in the case. P.W. 3 says that on the night of 8th December, the appellant whose condition had been apparent for some time called her saying she was in great pain. P.W. 3 advised that she should take some hot water and went on the following morning to the appellant's house and found the appellant sitting leaning against a wall and the newly delivered child lying on the ground dead. P.W. 3 then took the child out, buried it and having obtained assistance, she attended to the appellant and tidied up the house and went away. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the appellant throttled the child but we do not find sufficient proof in th...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. D.S. Raju Gupta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad682
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondents of an offence under Section 22, Provident Insurance Societies Act (5 of 1912). Respondent 1 was the managing director of the Bharathamatha Common, wealth Insurance Bank Ltd., Vizagapatam, and respondent 2 was the Secretary. Respondent 3 was the accountant and respondents 4 to 6 were directors. Respondent 7 was the auditor and Exs. C and B, the revenue account and balance sheet for the period from 1st November 1934 to 31st December 1935, were prepared by the Bank and audited by respondent 7. The revenue account was signed by respondents 1 to 5 and the balance sheet bears the signatures of respondents 1 and 4 to 6. Both were signed by respondent 7 in token of his audit, and they were filed with the Registrar of Provident Insurance Societies as required by Section 14 of the Act on 15th April 1936. They make it appear that the bank worked at a profit of Rs. 260-11-8 and were printed ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.C. Pandalai, Representing South Indian General Assurance Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad760
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellants are the South Indian General Assurance Go. Ltd., Mr. K.C. Pandalai, a director of the company, and K.C. Pandalai and Co., the managing agents of the company though all were represented by the second appellant, and they pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 4(1), Life Assurance Companies Act (6 of 1912). Section 34 of the Act provides that any life assurance company which makes default in complying with any of the requirements of the Act and every director, manager or secretary or other officer or agent of the company who is knowingly a party to the default shall be punishable with fine, and there is no force in the contention that besides the company only persons falling under any one of the specified categories can be punished. The punishment of the appellants is therefore legal and having regard to the period of default the fine cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »