Chennai Court April 1939 Judgments
The Public Prosecutor Vs. M.S. Menoki of Calicut
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad914; (1939)2MLJ634
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The application was for issue of summons to the lawyer for the 6th accused under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to produce certain letters written by the first accused to the sixth accused alleged to be in his possession and prima facie those letters are not privileged communications by the sixth accused to his lawyer under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further as held in Ganga Ram v. Habib-Ullah I.L.R.(1935) 58 All. 364, Clause 3 of Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not exempt documents protected under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the production of such documents is incumbent under Section 162 of the Indian Evidence Act notwithstanding any objection which there may be to the production or admissibility. The validity of the objection has to be decided by the Court after production and the dismissal of the application for issue of summons for production of the letters is unsustainable. The order of dismissal...
Tag this Judgment!Akuthota Byra Goudu Vs. Muniammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad5; (1939)2MLJ805
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the validity of an adoption. The properties in question formed part of the estate of one Sampanghi Rame Gowdu who had a son Byre Gowdu. The father and the son separated and it was agreed as one of the terms of the partition that the father's estate should be held during his lifetime by his second wife Lakshmakkal and on her death should go to Byre Gowdu, the son by the first wife. Lakshmakkal during her lifetime transferred those properties to her nephew the first defendant. Byre Gowdu had two wives, the first was the plaintiff and the second was one Ramakkal. Neither of them had any children. Byre Gowdu died in 1909 leaving a will which concludes with the following sentence:.if after my lifetime, both of you (that is, the two wives) do not agree to live together dividing the said properties into two equal shares, you shall separately make adoptions....2. Apparently this was regarded as giving each of the widows power to adopt without ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Moopan Vs. Mutha Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad705
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a contract connected with a toddy shop lease. The plaintiff, who is appellant here, bases his suit on allegations that he along with the defendant and one Senniandi entered into an agreement that one or more shops should be taken in auction in 1932-33, that the defendant having experience should manage all the affairs relating to the sale and maintain the accounts, that he should render account to his partners, who should obey his directions and that out of the profits each partner should get a share proportionate to their investments. It is alleged that the plaintiff subscribed Rs. 400, Senniandi Rs. 200 and the defendant Rs. 500 and the defendant held the money. In pursuance of this agreement the defendant took a shop in auction and the licence was obtained in his name and the shop was run in partnership. Shortly afterwards Senniandi withdrew and on the date when he withdrew, 2nd November 1932, the plaintiff signed a memorandum of the agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd., S. Barkat Ali and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad101
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application by the Secretary of the All India Spinners Association, Tamil Nad Branch, for payment to him of a sum of Rs. 9200 in preference to the ordinary creditors of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank. The claim for the said amount is put under two heads : (1) a sum of Rs. 5000 being the amount paid into the Tiruppur Branch of the Bank for getting a draft, No. 1506 of 1938, in exchange drawn by the Bank on its Bajapalayam Branch in favour of one Sankararaja; and (2) Rs. 4200 being the proceeds of three cheques delivered to the Tiruppur Branch of the Bank for collection, namely (a) cheque for Rs. 3000 bearing No. N. G. 7448I dated 15th June 1938 drawn on the Canara Industrial Banking Syndicate Ltd., Payyanur; (b) cheque for Rs. 500 bearing No. M.S. 621239 dated 17th June 1938 drawn on the Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd., Vijayapuram, Trivandrum; and (c) a cheque for Rs. 700 bearing No. 112315 dated 17th June 1938, drawn on the Indo-Commercial Ba...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad139
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application for payment of a sum of Rs. 534-5-0 to the applicant in preference to the ordinary creditors of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. It is alleged in the affidavit that on 20th June 1938, the day on which the Bank suspended payment, a sum of Rs. 533-1-0 was handed to the Bank for remitting it by telegraphic transfer to the Great Indian Trading Co. at Bombay. It is in evidence that the applicant had a current account with the Bank but the Bank did not credit the said sum of Rs. 534-5-0 in his account, but only a sum of Re. 1-4-0 being the charges for the intended transfer was debited. It is also in evidence that the money was never transferred because on that very day the Bank suspended payment. On the facts of this case, it seems to me that the money was held apart by the Bank as the property of the applicant. I am also inclined to the view that the money was received by the Bank in the capacity of a mere agent. The claim must...
Tag this Judgment!Nayar Modern Bank Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator, Travancore National an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad149
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application by the Nayar Modern Bank Ltd., for payment of a sum of Rs. 23,950-3-4 in full and in preference to the ordinary creditors of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application that under agreements with the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd., the Nayar Modern Bank made fixed deposits at the various branches of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank at different times for the purpose of enabling the Nayar Modern Bank to open overdraft accounts on the security of such fixed deposits, that there were five such fixed deposits on the date when the Travancore National and Quilon Bank suspended payment and that after giving credit to the amounts drawn by it on overdraft account there remained a balance of Rs. 23,950-3-4 which is now claimed. A statement of account is given in para. 4 of the affidavit and its accuracy is not traversed by the Official Liquidators. The ground o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad178
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application by the Nayar Modern Bank for payment of a sum of Rs. 6500 standing to its credit in the Travancore National and Quilon Bank under three fixed deposits for Rs. 1000, Rs. 5000 and Rs. 500 respectively in preference to the ordinary creditors of the Bank. The basis of the claim is thus put in para. 2 of the affidavit of the Managing Director:Under the mandatory provisions of Section 282-B, Companies Act, the Nayar Modern Bank Ltd. has deposited with the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. a total amount of Rs. 6500 under three deposits (R. No. 96, dated 30th July 1937 for Rs. 1000, R. No. 6 of 1938 for Rs. 5000, date 15th January 1938 and R. No. 24-38 for Rs. 500, dated 21st February 1938) and in a separate account earmarked as Employees' Cash Security. The Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. has-accepted the deposit as the Nayar Modern Bank Ltd., Employee's Gash Security Deposit and such, acceptance is evidenced by the endorsem...
Tag this Judgment!Marakkakandi Krishnan and ors. Vs. P.R.N. Ramanatha Aiyar and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ718
Somayya, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the property of the debtors is impartible and if so whether the debt due to the decree-holder is recoverable from that property.2. The respondent in this appeal obtained a money decree against one Baputty who died in April, 1926, leaving two brothers Velukutty and Choyi. The first of them died in 1926 and the second is still alive. In the execution petition filed by the respondent herein to execute his decree, the sons of the judgment-debtor Baputty were impleaded as his legal representatives. They are the appellants in this appeal. Objection was taken that the property of the family consisting of the deceased Baputty, his brothers and sons is impartible and that according to the customary law applicable to the Thiyyas of Calicut Taluk, such an impartible estate cannot be proceeded against in execution of a decree obtained against the deceased Baputty. By 'impartible' it is said that the property is not partible unless all t...
Tag this Judgment!D. Sundaravaradan Vs. M.K. Mani Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad915; (1939)2MLJ325
Gentle, J.1. The applicant was the subscriber for one ticket in a chit fund conducted by the company of the nominal value of Rs. 1,000. Having been a successful bidder for the prize at the sum of Rs. 940, he withdrew the prize. Thereafter his liability to pay his subscriptions from month to month continued. He withdrew the prize money upon supplying to the company security for the amount, the security being the monies to which his two brothers would each be entitled in respect of their respective subscriptions to other chit funds conducted by the company, the two brothers being sureties. In the applicant's affidavit, he states that the two brother's non-prized tickets were to be held as security for future instalments payable by him, and the company were empowered to appropriate the amounts due to them under the two tickets belonging to the two brothers towards any future instalments if default were committed in respect of such instalments. The learned Official Liquidator has taken the...
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Peria Koli Kelvi Appan Tiruvengada Ramanuja Pedda Jiyanga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad847; (1939)2MLJ378
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate permitting an appeal to His Majesty in Council. The petitioner is the legal representative of the plaintiff who died during the pendency of the appeal. The plaintiff was the head of an important mutt and as such had the right of conducting public worship at the Tirupathi temple in the Chittoor District. Both sides are agreed that the Tirupathi temple is the most important Vaishnavite temple in the whole of India and pilgrims in large numbers visit it every year in order to worship there. The Vaishnavite community is divided into two sects, the Thengalais (Southerners) and Vadagalais (Northerners). It is also common ground that the adherents of each sect are counted by millions. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in order to establish his right to conduct public worship at the temple according to the Thengalai ritual. Before the recitation of the Tamil scriptures (Prabandam), mantras are sung. The mantras sung b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »