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.
Karnam Subramanya Rao Vs. Pulla Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad957; (1940)2MLJ499
Wadsworth, J.1. In this case a former District Munsif heard arguments on the question whether the petition under Madras Act IV of 1938 would lie under Section 19, having regard to the provisions of Section 10(2)(ii) and he passed a considered order that there was no vendor's lien in respect of the liability and no obstacle under that section to the application. He then adjourned the matter for further enquiry. He was transferred and his successor instead of proceeding with the matter where his predecessor left it, reopened the issue which had been decided and gave a contrary finding and dismissed the application on that finding. I am of opinion that he had no jurisdiction to do that. Granting that the matter is not precisely covered by Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, that section is not exhaustive of the applicability of the principle of res judicata. Hook v. Administrator-General of Bengal (1921) 40 M.L.J. 423 : L.R. 48 IndAp 187 : I.L.R. 48 Cal. 499 . When an issue has been made th...
Bapalal and Co. Vs. A.R. Kishnaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad26; (1940)2MLJ556
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit riled by respondent against the appellants for damages for defamation. The facts may be stated very briefly. Respondent, a Medical Practitioner in Madras took some diamonds from the appellants a firm of jewellers, on approval in April, 1936. On 25th May appellants presented him with an invoice for their cost. By 27th September, the diamonds had not been paid for. On that day the appellants sent a letter to the Inspector of Police, Flower Bazaar Police Station, which is claimed by respondent to be defamatory, as being equivalent to a charge against him of criminal breach of trust. In their written statement appellants contended that this communication was privileged, having been sent bona fide with the sole purpose of protecting their own interests. The learned City Civil Judge held that the occasion was privileged and if the letter were in fact bona fide the suit must be dismissed, but he held further that the letter did not state the true fa...
Tumuluru Sitaramayya Vs. Tumuluru Sreeramaiya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ1064
Wadsworth, J.1. It seems that the trial Court's order is clearly wrong in-so far as it directs the petitioner - the agriculturist defendant - to pay the full amount of the decree as scaled down Under Section 14(b) of Madras Act IV of 1938 his liability extends only to his proportionate share in the decree which must be scaled down in his favour. So the decree against him has to be reduced from Rs. 585 to Rs. 292-8-0, with interest thereon from 1st; October, 1937, at 6 1/4 per cent. Petitioner also contends that the lower Court is wrong in making the non-agriculturist defendant liable for the full amount of the decree as passed and that this order offends against Section 14 (a) of the Act. This is a contention which cannot be raised, by the petitioner who is not concerned in that portion of the order. The petition if allowed to the extent indicated and the decree-holder respondent will pay petitioner's cost's. ...
In Re: HussaIn Khan Alias Sulaiman Khan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad429; (1941)1MLJ219
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The first appellant, a young person, pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The second appellant the father was present in obedience to the notice under Section 21(1) of the Madras Children Act and he was directed to pay the fine under Section 26(1) of the Act. But no opportunity was given to him to show that he had not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the first appellant nor does it appear from the report of the Probation Officer that the offence was due to any neglect of the father. The order under Section 26(1) of the Madras Children Act is therefore set aside and on the materials on record the proper course was to commit the first appellant to the custody of his father on his executing a bond to be responsible for the good behaviour of the son. The sentence of fine is therefore set aside and the first appellant will be committed to the custody of...
S. Sankaranarayana Aiyar Vs. Paramasivam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ650
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly, refusing to discharge the petitioner from his suretyship under a security bond executed by him under Section 55(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts are simple and not in dispute. The first respondent obtained a decree against the second respondent and had him arrested in execution thereof. When the latter was brought before the Court under arrest, the petitioner deposited Rs. 500 as cash security and executed a surety bond on the strength of which the Court released the judgment-debtor from arrest. The bond runs as follows:In case the respondent (that is the judgment-debtor) fails to apply to be declared an insolvent within one month from this date, and in case the said respondent fails to appear, when called upon in any proceeding upon such application or upon the decree in execution of which the said respondent was arrested, the Court may direct the cash security to ...