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.
Umade Rajaha Raje Damara Kumara Venkatalingama Nayanim Bahadur Varu, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1940
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ47
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out or a suit instituted by the present Raja of Kalahasti (Venkatalingamma by name) on the basis of a mortgage deed executed by his father the late Rajah of Kalahasti (Timma Nayanim Varu) in favour of his second wife Chinnamma for a sum of Rs. 63,000 on the 2nd January, 1913- Ex. Rules The late Rajah of Kalahasti whom it will be more convenient to refer in this judgment as Timma, died on the 5th December, 1919, after he had held the impartible estate of Kalahasti for about 14 years. Timma had two sons by his first wife Chellamma one of whom is the present plaintiff and the other was Akkappa.2. Akkappa was given in adoption by Timma to his elder brother Muddu Venkatappa who held the impartible estate of Kalahasti after the death of his father Venkatappa Nayanim Varu (commonly known as the C. S. I. Raja) up till the 22nd March, 1894. Muddu Venkatappa had, while he held the impartible estate, executed a mortgage in 1893 on some of the villages of his ...
Pachaiammal and anr. Vs. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society, Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad270
1. The question which falls for decision in this appeal is whether the respondent company, the Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society, Ltd., carries on business in Madras within the meaning of Clause is, Letters Patent of this Court. Appellant 1 is the widow and appellant 2 is the daughter of one C.T. Subramania Mudali, who died on 31st May 1926. The deceased lived at Little Conjeevaram in the Chingleput District and therefore outside the limits of this Court's original jurisdiction. He insured his life with the company for a sum of Rs. 5000 payable at the age of 60 years. According to the pleadings the policy was issued on 6th August 1925 and the assured died on 3lst May 1926. The company repudiated liability on the ground that the assured had failed to disclose that he was suffering from certain diseases when he made the proposal. The suit was 'filed on the original side of this Court by the appellants, who claimed that the Court had jurisdiction because the company was carrying on ...
Chimakurti Seshayya Vs. Sait Hirachand Chunilal Firm Represented by Ut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad285; (1940)2MLJ672
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against a decision in appeal against an order directing the prosecution of an insolvent for an offence under Section 72 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.2. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent on the ground that the appeal itself was incompetent. The objection is based 'on English decisions - vide In re Marsden (1876) 2 Petition under Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act praying that the High Court will be pleased to revise the order of the District Court of Guntur dated 7th March, 1939 and made in C.M.A. No. 89 of 1938 preferred against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali, dated 7th July, 1938 and made in O.P. No. 4 of 1937.Ch. D. 786 and Ex parte Brown: In re Appleby (1876) 2 Ch. D. 799, where it is held that under the corresponding provisions of the Eilglish Bankruptcy Act, no notice should be given to the bankrupt before directing the trustee to prosecute for the offence of obta...
In Re: Govindarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad352; (1941)1MLJ470
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor lorry for private use and he is alleged to have suffered his driver to carry goods of another person for hire. This would unquestionably be an offence under Rule 138 of the Motor Vehicle Rules and the offence would be punishable under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act if no other penalty is provided for it. The power conferred on the transport authority to suspend the permit in such cases cannot be regarded or treated as a penalty for the offence, and the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not illegal. There is therefore no ground for quashing the proceedings and the petition is dismissed....
The Palghat Electric Corporation Ltd. Vs. T.N. Veeraraghava Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad439; (1941)1MLJ411
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a revision petition preferred by the Palghat Electric Corporation Limited against the decree directing the refund to the respondent, a consumer of electricity in Palghat town, of the over-charge alleged to have been collected from him.2. Two contentions have been urged for the petitioner, namely (1) that the premises where the respondent is running a coffee hotel cannot be regarded as 'commercial premises' so as to fall under Rule 1, Clause (e) of Part II of the Rules relating to the terms and conditions under which the petitioner-company supplies electric energy in the town of Palghat and (2) that the alleged excess payments made by the respondent to the petitioner-company from 14th February, 1934 till 27th February, 1935 were voluntary payments and therefore are not recoverable.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the term 'commercial premises' must be understood in the light of the well-marked distinction between the terms 'commerce' and '...
Vempati Venkayya Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad796; (1941)2MLJ810
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the District Court of Guntur setting aside a sale in favour of the petitioner as a fraudulent preference under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. One Ramachandrayya and another were adjudicated. insolvents on August 7, 1930. The sale deed in question (Ex. Ill) was executed by them in favour of the petitioner on July 11, 1930. The total liabilities of the insolvents amounted to about Rs. 4,000 of which about Rs. 3,000 was due to the petitioner. The sale deed comprised all the insolvents' properties except their residential house in the village which, according to P.W. 4, was worth from Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 at the time of the sale. The sale was executed for Rs. 1,400 in pro tanto discharge of the debt due to the petitioner, a promissory note being given for the balance. The deed was registered in Guntur though the lands comprised therein are within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar of Gurzala where ...
V. Srinivasachariar and anr. Vs. the Conjeevaram Hodgsonpet Dharmaraks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad937; (1940)2MLJ478
King, J.1. The question involved in this Civil Revision Petition is the interpretation of Section 10(2)(iii) of Madras Act IV of 1938. The respondent is the Conjeevaram Hodgsonpet Dharmarakshaka Nidhi, Ltd., from whom the petitioner borrowed Rs. 1,500 in February, 1927, upon a mortgage bond. The suit is brought upon this mortgage bond in March, 1932, and a decree has been granted to the respondent and the mortgaged property has been sold. The petitioner has applied under Section 23 of the Act to have the sale set aside. He will not be entitled to this relief if in the words of the sub-section with which we have to deal the interest payable in respect of his liability is not more than 9 per cent, per annum as the respondent here is a public company as defined in the Indian Companies Act.2. The terms of the bond are somewhat complicated. The 4 interest chargeable upon the money borrowed is only 6 1/4 per cent, in the first instance but it is payable at the end of every month and there ar...
Raju Mudali Alias Vinayaka Mudaliar Vs. Chinnaraju Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad51; (1940)2MLJ562
King, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (k) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the learned District Judge of North Arcot refusing to set aside the abatement of A.S. No. 214 of 1936. The appellant is the legal representative of the appellant who was on record in A.S. No. 214 of 1936. He applied to be impleaded and to be allowed to continue the appeal at a time when more than 90 days had elapsed since the death of his predecessor-in-interest. The reasons for his application were that he was a sepoy undergoing service at Jubbulpore, that he attempted to obtain leave from his Commanding Officer for the purpose of coming to Vellore and attending to this question of coming on record in the appeal, that the Commanding Officer refused to grant him leave and that when he eventually granted him leave on receipt of a letter from the Village Munsif, 90 days had expired. The learned District Judge refused to allow the petition on the ground that it was not ...
The Examiner of Local Fund Accounts Vs. Sp.Rm.Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad891(2); (1941)2MLJ403
Wadsworth, J.1. These two revision petitions arise against an order of the District Judge setting aside two surcharge orders passed by the auditor under rules framed under Section 199 of the Madras Local Boards Act, against the president of a Union Panchayat Board.2. The facts are not in dispute. In two criminal cases in which subordinates of the Board were concerned, the president made payments to advocates in excess of the scale which the Board itself could sanction. The fees were paid by the president in anticipation of the Board's sanction under the emergency powers conferred upon the president by Section 22 of the Madras Local Boards Act. The payments were reported to the Panchayat Board which duly ratified them though they were beyond its sanctioning power, Objection was taken by the auditor because of the failure to obtain the Government's sanction as required under the rules. Thereupon, an application was made to the Government to sanction these payments but it was rejected. Th...
Sanampudi Kodandaramayya Vs. Gurrala Venkatareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad74(1); (1940)2MLJ553
King, J.1. As I have already held in C.M.A. No. 207 of 1939 the definition of the word 'creditor' in the Act is conclusive in showing that a renewal of a debt to the assignee of the original creditor is a renewal to the 'same' creditor within the meaning of the explanation to Section 8 of the Madras Act IV of 1938. I am now, however, asked to hold that the definition of the word 'creditor' in Section 3(v) though it may extend to a first assignee cannot be extended to any subsequent assignee. The number of links in the chain of succession makes, in my opinion, no difference. The point is simply this that the ultimate assignee has, in respect of the debt, succeeded to the legal right of the original creditor in exactly the same sense as the first assignee has. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »