Chennai Court August 1940 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Nayar Modern Bank Ltd., by Its Managing Director M. Madhavan Nair ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad48; (1940)2MLJ559
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and carries on a banking business at Palghat in Malabar. The appellant requires certain employees to deposit sums of money with it as security for the due fulfilment of their duties. Section 282-B(1) of the Indian Companies Act states that all moneys or securities deposited with a company by its employees in pursuance of their contracts of service with the company shall be deposited by it in a special account to be opened for the purpose in a scheduled bank as defined in Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and that no portion of the money shall be utilised by the Company except for the purposes agreed to in the contract of service. The Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Limited (I will refer to it for brevity as 'the Bank') was a scheduled bank as defined in the Reserve Bank of India Act, but it is now in liquidation as the result of an order for compulso...
Varadarajam Pillai, Minor by Guardian Malayaperumal Pillai Vs. Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad321; (1940)2MLJ664
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act to amend the decree in O.S. No. 775 of 1932 on the file of the lower Court by scaling it down in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The decree was passed on a promissory note for Rs. 2,350 executed in favour of the respondent on 12th April, 1932. The sum represented the interest due on an earlier mortgage for Rs. 10,000 executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent's father on 1st September, 1926. The respondent applied for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the mortgaged properties but the application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that by virtue of Order 34, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code, the mortgaged property could not be brought to sale as the claim was one arising under the mortgage and the decree-holder must be deemed to be the mortgagee himself as the respondent obtained the dec...
A. Sankara Aiyar Vs. Yagappan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ874
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul dated 5th September, 1938, whereby it entered satisfaction of the decree in S.C.S. No. 40 of 1937 on application by the judgment-debtor, respondent before us under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The respondent executed a mortgage for Rs. 800 in favour of the petitioner on 16th September, 1929, and for interest due on the mortgage, he gave on 23rd January, 1937, a promissory note for Rs. 595-7-0 the sum being endorsed on the mortgage bond as received for interest. The decree which is sought to be scaled down was obtained on this promissory note. The respondent applied in the Court below alleging that he was an agriculturist and that by virtue of the combined operation of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the decree must be deemed to have been satisfied. The application was allowed and full satisfaction of the decree was accordingly recorded. There was no dis...
Ediga Seshanna and anr. Vs. R. Venkataramana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad60; (1940)2MLJ837
1. Our decision in C.R.P. No. 113 of 1939 since reported in Neelappa Reddiar v. Solaimuthu Udayan : AIR1941Mad58 makes it clear that we approve the decision of Somayya, J., in In re Ramaszvami Chettiar : (1939)2MLJ609 and cannot agree that the petitioner is entitled under the explanation to Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to treat his mortgage as a renewal of his vendor's mortgage, which he has discharged. It has, however, been suggested on the reasoning in Perianna v. Sellappa : AIR1939Mad186 , that at the moment when the sale to petitioner was completed there was created a liability in petitioner himself to discharge his vendor's mortgage and that this liability has been renewed or included in a fresh document by the execution of his own mortgage. We are of opinion that this theory of a discharge of a pre-existing liability of the petitioner himself scarcely accords with the facts. No doubt the sale was in theory anterior to the mortgage, but in point of fact they were both part o...
Emperor Vs. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad1
ORDER1. The jury at my direction having returned a unanimous verdict of 'not guilty' the accused is acquitted and she will be set at liberty immediately....
Periasami Pillai Vs. Sivathia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad112; (1940)2MLJ498
1. With reference to the question of the burden of proof under Section 3(ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938 and its provisos, it seems to us clear that the applicant, has first to establish a prima facie case that he falls under one of the categories enumerated in Sections 3(ii)(a) to (d). Then the burden shifts to the respondent to show prima facie that the applicant is excluded by one or other of the provisos. When this has been done the burden again shifts to the applicant to adduce materials which are specially within his knowledge and have a bearing on the applicability of the provisos. The lower Court does not appear to have grasped the principles on which the onus should lie and a fresh finding is necessary on the question whether the applicant is an agriculturist.2. If he is an agriculturist the position is clear with reference to our decision in C.R.P. No. 1607 of 1938. All interest outstanding on 1st October, 1937, has to be wiped out. There after interest will have to be calculate...
itikala Suryanarayanamurthy Vs. Redi Viranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad226; (1940)2MLJ547
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises the question of the way in which Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938, should be interpreted in a case in which there have been payments made and appropriated after the 1st October, 1937 and before the Act came into force. The essential facts are that there was a debt anterior to the 1st October, 1932, which resulted in a decree dated the 30th September, 1936. The decree was for a sum of Rs. 1,761-8-0 with interest at 6 per cent, and for costs amounting to Rs. 437-6-3 with interest thereon. After the decree had been passed there were three payments: (1) Rs. 500 on 25th January, 1938; (2) Rs. 200 on 23rd February, 1938; and (3) Rs. 300 on 2nd March, 1938. It is found by the Court below that these payments were all appropriated towards costs and interest. The question is whether these appropriations are liable to be undone with reference to Ssii-8 and 19 of the Act.2. The petitioner contends that the plain way of working out the provision...
Anantharamakrishna Aiyar Vs. V. Sundaram Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ550
1. The question whether the payment of Rs. 643-12-0, dated 29th December, 1934, was appropriated before 1st October, 1937, is a question of fact which does not appear to have been decided by the Court below. It from the materials available, it can be shown that there was an appropriation towards interest made before 1st October, 1937, to the extent of that appropriation there cannot be any cancellation of interest and the appropriation will stand. Any appropriation made after 1st October, 1937, and before the commencement of the Act must be deemed to be available for readjustment in accordance with the provisions of the Act, vide our decision in C.R.P. No. 1602 of 1938. Satyanarayanamurthy v. Viranna : AIR1941Mad226 .2. The petition is allowed and the application is remitted to the trial Court for disposal in the light of this judgment.3. Costs in revision will abide by the result....
Narayanasami Reddy Vs. Veerasami Reddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad244; (1940)2MLJ711
Wadsworth, J.1. The question in this revision petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of an agriculturist, having regard to the terms of Proviso (D) to Section 3(ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938.2. The petitioner was at the time of his application the landholder of more than one estate. The total peshkush payable in respect of these estates exceeded Rs. 500, but no one of the estates paid so much as Rs. 500 peshkush. Petitioner contends therefore that he is not the landholder of an estate in respect of which estate a sum exceeding Rs. 500 is paid as peshkush. We are unable to accept this contention. Reading the definition along with Section 3(35) of the Madras General Clauses Act, we must hold that the definition is to be read as covering a landholder of an estate or estates, in respect of which estate or estates a sum exceeding Rs. 500 is paid as peshkush. That is the view taken by the Court below.3. It is also suggested that the petitioner comes within the definiti...
Mrs. Ida L. Chambers and Ors. Vs. Kelland Huxford Chamber's
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad154; (1940)2MLJ963
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appeal arises out of an originating summons issued on the Original Side of this Court at the instance of the respondent. There are two questions involved. The first question is whether there was a valid gift of movable property. The second question is whether a trust was created, if there was no gift. The respondent is the sole executor and trustee of the will and codicil of Ethel Mary Chambers, deceased, who was the first wife of George Alexander Chambers, deceased, who was the sole proprietor of a business known as The Chrome-Leather Company. It will be convenient to refer to Ethel Mary Chambers as the testatrix and to George Alexander Chambers as the testator. The testatrix died on the 23rd March, 1924 and the testator on the 16th November, 1937. The first appellant is his third wife and she and the second and the third appellants are the executors and trustees of his will and codicil. The fourth appellant is the son of the testator by his secon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »