Chennai Court July 1940 Judgments
Thiravia Nadar Vs. Paulraj Chelliah Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad74(2); (1940)2MLJ417
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner having deposited under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure the amount necessary to have the sale set aside and this amount having been withdrawn by the decree-holder in full satisfaction, there no longer remains a debt to found an application under Madras Act IV of 1938 or a decree to scale down. No refund of amounts paid can be ordered except under provisions of Sections 22 to 25, which have no application when there is no subsisting sale to set aside. And the fact that the deposit under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made on the day when the Act came into force has no bearing, when once it is conceded that the application under the Act was made long after the decree had been satisfied.2. The petition is dismissed.3. There will be no costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kamakshi Chetti Vs. A.S. Alaganan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad73(1); (1940)2MLJ468
Wadsworth, J.1. There is nothing in Section 27 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to warrant the view that a certificate given by a local board is conclusive of the facts which it states. It is open to the other side to let in evidence that the certificate is not true - whether the error alleged relates to the amount of the tax or the nature of the income in respect of which it was levied. The petition is allowed and remanded to the trial Court for disposal in the light of this judgment after receiving such Evidence as the parties may adduce. The costs of this petition will abide by the result....
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Ebrahim Sait Vs. the Mettupalayam Narayani Bank, Limited, by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad958; (1940)2MLJ495
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Mockett, J., adjudicating the appellant an insolvent. It is said that the person who filed the application for adjudication had no authority in law to do so and that there was no act of insolvency. Both these questions were raised before the learned Judge who has dealt with them fully in his judgment and we agree with his conclusions.2. The petitioning creditor was the Mettupalayam Narayani Bank, Limited, which had obtained a decree against the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for a sum of some Rs. 56,000. The decree was transferred to Madras for execution and execution proceedings were duly instituted. Chi the 4th March, 1939, the Bank attached the appellant's residence. The attachment continued until the 30th March, 1939, when the petition for adjudication was filed. The application was signed by V. Palaniappa Chettiar, who was the Director in charge of the Bank and also held t...
Tag this Judgment!Karanan Syama Rao Vs. V. Hanumantha Rao, Minor by Guardian and Materna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad925; (1940)2MLJ476
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Court of Kurnool scaling down the amount due to the respondent under a compromise decree passed on 31st August, 1936, in O.S. No. 14 of 1936 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kurnool. The compromise decree, so far as it is material here, runs as follows:In full satisfaction of the suit claim and costs, besides the sum of Rs. 1,000 received by the plaintiff's next friend on 22nd August, 1936, the defendant has to pay Rs. 2,100.... Each party shall bear the costs incurred by him.2. It was admitted that the principal sum originally advanced was Rs. 2,800, and the lower Court, applying Section 8 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, deducted the amount paid by the petitioner Rs. 3,980-8-0 from twice the principal amount and found that the balance payable on the Mate of the decree was Rs. 1,619-8-0. So far there is no dispute between the parties. The learned Judge, however, proceeded to apply the p...
Tag this Judgment!Madhava Ramachandra Kamath, Son of Ankola Ramachandra Krishna Kamath V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ721
Gentle, J.1 This is a petition by a shareholder of the Canara Banking Corporation, Ltd., under Section 38 (1) of the Companies Act. This section, so far as it is material, provides that if the name of any person is without sufficient cause entered in or omitted from the register of members of a company, the person aggrieved may apply to the Court for rectification of the register. The petitioner is the holder of one share only and ( the company at a general meeting purported to act under Article 173 of the Articles of Association and expelled him from membership. This Article provides to the effect that if any shareholder unjustly or unlawfully has recourse to law in any matter whatever connected with the Corporation, he shall render himself liable to expulsion and on such expulsion he shall never again be admitted into the Corporation.2. The petitioner preferred a complaint to the District Magistrate of South Canara seeking sanction under Section 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnuswami Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad604
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The appeal was presented on 2nd July 1940, and the should not have been disposed of the same day in spite of the request of the advocate for time to obtain the necessary records. The order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate is therefore set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Musiri for disposal according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Puthanveettil Cheeru Vs. Chenenkeel Punnoron Chathu Nambiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad44; (1940)2MLJ451
King, J.1. This appeal relates to a claim for arrears of rent by the respondent and a claim by the present tenant (the appellant) that by his payment of the rent due for Faslis 1346 and 1347 all those arrears have been wiped out under Section 15 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The appellant was not the original tenant but an assignee from him in 1936. The question is whether the arrears of rent claimed by the respondent are 'rent payable' by the appellant. It is true that appellant is not personally liable to pay rent for the period before the assignment to him, but it is to my mind clear that, apart from the Agriculturists' Relief Act, respondent could in the final accounting between himself and appellant insist upon the appellant's paying him the whole of the arrears as a set off against whatever might be payable to appellant as compensation for his improvements. In a very real sense therefore the whole of the arrears is 'payable' by appellant; and I cannot accept responden...
Tag this Judgment!Gandikota Kamanna Vs. Tondapu Satti Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad919; (1940)2MLJ467
King, J.1. I see no ground for revision. It is quite clear from the language of Section 3(ii), Proviso B of Act IV of 1938 that assessment for four consecutive half years from October, 1935 to September, 1937, is not required - as if that were so, the word 'throughout' would be found in the place of the word 'within'. The second argument is that it is only a person who has been validly assessed who is excluded from the definition of agriculturist. I see nothing in the language of the proviso to support this view. The words are simple 'has been assessed' and they are qualified by no adverb relating, to the correctness or validity of the assessment.2. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kesava Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ468a
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 457 and 395 read with Section 109of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 and 3 years respectively.2. The trial was by jury and the verdict was unanimous. But the conviction is founded on the evidence of the approver and as rightly conceded it is not corroborated in any material particular bearing upon the implication of the first appellant. The only piece of corroboration against the second appellant is the finding of an umbrella in his family house, and the jury was not told that the evidence of an accomplice must be corroborated in some material particular bearing upon the implication of the accused in the crime. The conviction of the appellants cannot therefore be sustained and having regard to the evidence on record a re-trial is not desired. The appellants are therefore acquitted and their bail bonds will be cancelled....
Tag this Judgment!S.P.Rm.M. Meyappa Chettiar Vs. S.P.Rm.Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad96; (1940)2MLJ494
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The only point for determination in this revision petition relates to the applicability of Article 61 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner's claim for contribution in respect of a half share of the amount spent by him for purchase of stamps for a sale certificate issued in respect of properties jointly purchased by the petitioner and the respondent. The stamps were purchased on 13th February, 1933. The sale certificate Ex. A was issued by the Court on 20th February, 1933. The suit was brought on 18th February, 1936. The Court below applied Article 61 of the Limitation Act and reckoning 3 years from 13th February, 1933, when the petitioner actually paid the money for the purchase of the stamps held the suit barred by limitation. I cannot agree with this view. Even assuming that Article 61 is applicable to certain classes of suits for contribution, I am clearly of opinion that it cannot apply to a suit of this description. For it is obvious that the petitioner c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »