Chennai Court April 1939 Judgments
In Re: K.V. Lakshmana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad134
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an application to expunge the remarks made against the petitioners by the Sessions Judge of Bellary in his judgment in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1938 and the facts are correctly stated in the affidavits filed in support of the application. The petitioners are Registered Accountants and Auditors practising at Banglore and Bellary respectively, and they had no concern with the formation or incorporation of the Hospet Sugar Mills by the accused. The company commenced business on a certificate granted on 14th November 1933 and the statutory meeting had to be held within six months from that date. A statutory report certified by the Auditor of the Company had to be placed before the meeting and the accounts had to be submitted for their audit. The accounts were not maintained in proper book form and accused 1 approached the second petitioner in January 1934 to recommend somebody to write-up the accounts. The second petitioner recommended P.W. 8 who had passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Unnamalai Ammal Vs. Amba Baghyathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad763
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings by way of a claim to properties attached in execution of a decree. The decree which gave rise to the claim proceedings was a small cause decree in favour of the husband of the present plaintiff and against defendant 2 who is the husband of defendant 1, the appellant. Execution proceedings were first taken by the plaintiff's husband to attach the property which was claimed exclusively by defendant 1, wife of the judgment-debtor, as her own, in virtue of a will. After the dismissal of the claim petition, the decree-holder, i.e. the plaintiff's husband, died and an order was passed by the executing Court: 'Decree-holder dead. Petition dismissed.' The main question in the present appeal is whether this order has the effect of raising the attachment on the land claimed by defendant 1. Evidently, the parties themselves thought that it had this effect, for, after the death of her husband, the plaintiff as his heir filed a fresh execution p...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuman Dikshitar and anr. Vs. the Board of Commissioners for the Hin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad682; (1939)2MLJ11
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. Appeal No. 306 of 1936.- This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of South Arcot modifying a scheme framed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board in regard to the temple of Sri Sabanayakar alias Nataraja of Chidambaram. This action was filed as a representative suit on behalf of the Dikshitars (who are said to be over 200 in number) who claim to be trustees - archakas and poojaris of the said temple. Before the learned District Judge various questions as to jurisdiction were raised. It is unnecessary for us to mention all of them. It is sufficient for us to say that one of the main questions raised in this behalf was in regard to the non-applicability of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and the consequent want of jurisdiction in the Board to frame a scheme. The contention of the Dikshitars is that the suit temple is only a private temple and not a public religious institution within the meaning of the Act and therefore the Boar...
Tag this Judgment!Vellayya Konar (Died) and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Konar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad894; (1939)2MLJ400
Wadsworth, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a suit brought by a creditor under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act for a declaration that an alienation by the debtor is void against the creditors is a suit for cancellation of a document securing money or property falling under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act as amended in Madras, or whether it is a suit to obtain a declaration where no consequential relief is prayed, falling under Article 17-A of Schedule II of the same Act. Both the Courts below have found that the suit falls under Section 7(iv-A). The plaint recites that the properties in suit are in the possession and enjoyment of the second defendant against whom the plaintiff got a decree on a promissory note, the suit being filed on 2nd August, 1924 and decreed on 12th November, 1924. It is alleged that on 19th June, 1924, the second defendant, collusively and with a view to cheat the plaintiff's claim, executed a sale deed in favour of his brother-...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mahanti Sreeramulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad293
Stodart, J.1. The accused, a man of 26, has been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Gangayya, aged 20. The referred trial raises the question whether we should confirm the sentence of death. The appeal is by the accused praying that the conviction be set aside. It is certain that the deceased was stabbed in the abdomen in the night of 19th August when he was sleeping on the pial of the house in the occupation of one Atchayya. At his cries the other persons who were sleeping there and the deceased's relations came to his help. They carried him on a cot to the house of the Assistant Surgeon and from there to the local fund hospital where he died on the morning of 21st August at 8 o'clock. The post mortem examination disclosed the fact that the stab had penetrated the abdominal cavity and had pierced the intestines and that death was due to profuse internal haemorrhage and acute peritonitis.2. P.W. 7 the father of the deceased who went to the scene of crime at once on hear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›