Chennai Court March 1940 Judgments
Pothera Kallur Veettil Narayanan Nambiar Vs. Pothera Kallur Veettil Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad730; (1940)1MLJ939
Pandrang Row, J.1. This petition raises the question whether the petitioner, who was a surety for the proper administration of tarwad affairs and properties by the karnavan, is entitled, to be discharged from the bond for the reason given by him. The petitioner is a junior member of the tarwad, who of his own accord stood surety and executed the bond for Rs. 2,000. It is not pretended that he executed this bond owing to any mistake of fact or misrepresentation or in circumstances of the like nature. The reason given by him is that he is not prepared to continue to remain bound and that he wants to dispose of some of his properties. Here in this Court the learned Counsel on his behalf adds another reason, namely, that he has lost faith in his karnavan. In effect it comes to this the petitioner wants to be released because he wants to be released and does not like to remain bound.2. It is well settled now that in the case of a bond like this a surety cannot release himself or discharge h...
Tag this Judgment!V.S.A.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Vellayan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad826; (1940)2MLJ23
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises a question relating to rateable distribution which is not, so far as I am aware, covered by any precise authority. The petitioner, the first respondent and the second respondent, all had decrees against the third respondent and his father, who became an insolvent. The first respondent executed his decree on 15th October, 1934, and on 5th January, 1935, the Court ordered sale of the entire properties of the father and the Son. This order was modified by a later order restricting the sale only to the second defendant's half share and after this order, the Official Receiver was impleaded and when he did not appear, the order was again revised directing that the entire properties should be sold. At this stage, the Official Receiver wrote to the Court pointing out that if he were permitted to sell the entire property as the agent of the Court and deposit into Court the share of the non-insolvent son, this procedure would be for the benefit of the attachi...
Tag this Judgment!Thota Varahalayya (Dead) and ors. Vs. Mattapalli Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ290
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a lessee under the mortgagor the third defendant in the suit and seeks to file an: additional written statement raising the plea that the debt due to the plaintiff is liable to be scaled down under the provisions of Act IV of 1938. The Court below has refused to grant leave to file the additional written statement on the ground that the suit by the plaintiff as usufructuary mortgagee to recover possession was not one to enforce the debt and so no question of scaling it down could arise. Mr. Somasundaram for the petitioner however points out that he is entitled to redeem the plaintiff's usufructuary mortgage by virtue of the lease alleged to have been obtained from the mortgagor subsequently to the plaintiff's mortgage and is thus interested in raising the question as to the true amount payable to the plaintiff. This contention is correct and must be upheld. It follows that the petitioner's additional written statement must be admitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Thota Varahalayya Vs. Mattapalli Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad21
ORDERPatanjali Sastri, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a lessee under the mortgagor defendant 3 in the suit and seeks to file an additional written statement raising the plea that the debt duo to the plaintiff is liable to be scaled down under the provisions of Act 4 of 1938. The Court below has refused to grant leave to file the additional written statement on the ground that the suit by the plaintiff as usufructuary mortgagee to recover possession was not one to enforce the debt and so no question of scaling it down could arise. Mr. Somasundaram for the petitioner however points out that he is entitled to redeem the plaintiff's usufructuary mortgage by virtue of the lease alleged to have been obtained from the mortgagor subsequently to the plaintiff's mortgage and is thus interested in raising the question as to the true amount payable to the plaintiff. This contention is correct and must be upheld. It follows that the petitioner's additional writ-ton statement must be admitted and ...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Balakisonlal Jankiprasad Vs. the Debt Conciliation Board by Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ463
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The second respondent in these proceedings applied to the Debt Conciliation Board of Kovvur for the settlement of his debts under the provisions of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. His application disclosed fourteen creditors of whom the present petitioner is one. According to the petition of the second respondent the total amount owing by him was Rs. 1,51,000 and of this Rs. 1,25,000 was owing to the petitioner. The amount due to the petitioner was payable under a mortgage decree dated 16th November, 1937, passed by tha,Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore. The petitioner obtained an order for sale of the mortgaged property on the 14th April, 1939 and the sale was fixed for the 17th July, 1939. A fortnight before the date fixed for the sale the second respondent made his application to the Debt Conciliation Board. Notice of the application was served upon all the creditors, who appeared before the Board on the 1.1th August, 1939.2. The...
Tag this Judgment!C. Jayaram Mudaliar Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad777; (1940)1MLJ877
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by a husband against his wife for the restitution of conjugal rights. The parties are Hindus and Mudaliars. The undisputed facts are these. The marriage took place in June, 1916, when defendant was nine years old. It was brought about largely by an elderly relative of both parties named Ponnambala, who also executed a will making provisions in favour of both parties to take effect on the death of his widow. About 1921 when Ponnambala was dead and defendant had not yet attained, puberty, plaintiff married a second wife, also then an immature girl. She was his sister's daughter. She attained her puberty within a few months, and ever since has lived with the plaintiff. Defendant attained puberty in 1922 or 1923, but continued to live with her parents. In 1926 occurred the only correspondence between the parties or their families until shortly before the suit. Plaintiff wrote to both defendant and defendant's father complaining that defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanaprakasam Pillai and anr. Vs. Parasakthy Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad179
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by two plaintiffs, one of whom is a minor, for a declaration that the will, Ex. X alleged to have been executed by one Thangavelu on 10th August 1928 was not executed by him and could not be, at all events, said to have been a valid will as the testator had not attained majority on the date on which the will was said to have been executed and that inasmuch as he (i.e. the testator) was suffering from cholera and died within a few hours of the alleged execution of the will he could not be said to have possessed a sound disposing mind. The will was presented for registration a week after Thangavelu's death by one Kuppusami who was the husband of the testator's sister Rajambal and was ordered to be registered on 4th October 1928 in spite of objections raised by defendant 14 - the elder brother of the present plaintiffs and by one Kandasami. The present suit was instituted on 8th August 1934. The present plaintiffs alleged that...
Tag this Judgment!Kondayya Nayudu and anr. Vs. Marianan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad766; (1940)1MLJ936
Horwill, J.1. The respondent is a guard on the South Indian Railway and the petitioner is a creditor who applied to the Court for an order of attachment of a part of the guard's salary and allowances. An order was passed; but the Audit Officer, South Indian Railway, sent to the lower Court a report to the effect that the attachable amount of salary was Rs. 21-12-0, from which had to be deducted provident fund, Rs. 11-15-0, and provident fund advance, Rs. 10-0-0, the total of which two was greater than the attachable salary. He therefore said that no amount was available for attachment.2. The learned Advocate for the respondent argues that the allowances of the guard should not be taken into account. They are, he says, compensation for the expense of travelling and having to buy his meals and sleep away from his home. I do not however find any reason for the exemption of allowances, and they are ordinarily included in the salary. There is no exemption of allowances in any of the clauses...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Mahommad Abdullah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad587; (1940)1MLJ816
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the appellate order of acquittal of the respondents of an offence under Section 30(3) read with Section 25(2)(b) of the Indian Emigration Act.2. The respondents were running a vidhuthi or rest house at Negapatam and as found by the Courts below, P.Ws. 1 to 5, the unskilled labourers who were bound for Penang and lodging in the vidhuthi were not permitted to embark at Negapatam. Their steamer fares were refunded and the respondents offered to send them to Penang by a French steamer from Karaikal. P.Ws. 1 to 5 paid the required amount to the first respondent and he secured the steamer tickets and sent them to Karaikal with the second respondent. The second respondent saw them safely into the boats which took them to the steamer and as urged by the Public Prosecutor the respondents undoubtedly assisted P.Ws. 1 to 5 to depart by land out of British Indiaso as to depart for the purpose of working for hire in a countr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Madras Vs. Duttys Trust Calicut.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1940
Reported in: [1942]10ITR477(Mad)
.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).The firm of U. B. Dutt & Co., in which there was three partners, carried on business as general merchants in calicut. They also owned a cinema and a saw mill at Kallai and a rice mill at Ernakulam. In 1935 certain creditors applied, for the adjudication of the partners as inslovents under the Provincial Insolveny Act. This petition was not proceeded with because on the 14th December, 1935, an agreement was arrived at under which the debtors properties were to the conveyed to trustees for the benefit of their creditors. Accordingly the debtors assets were conveyed to three trustees with power to realize what was necessary and to pay the creditors proportionately out of the moneys that received. The trustees sold the cinema in the firms financial year which ended on the 30th June 1937. The general business was also sold, but they carried on the saw mill business which proved to be a profitable concern. The profits...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »