Chennai Court January 1941 Judgments
M. Muni Reddy Vs. M. Muni Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad434; (1941)1MLJ499
King, J.1. These appeals involve the interpretation of certain sections of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act. The appellant is a debtor who made an application under the Act. He had ten creditors and of these ten, eight came to an amicable settlement with him, the eight representing more than one half of the total indebtedness of the appellant. Under Section 14 therefore the settlement was reduced to writing. The remaining two who refused to agree to the settlement already held decrees as evidence of the debts due to them from the appellant. A certificate was given to the debtor under Section 18. The recalcitrant creditors proceeded to execute their decrees and the question now is whether they are entitled to execute their decrees against the whole of the assets of the appellant, which amount to Rs. 5,125, standing to his credit in the Co-operative Central Bank, or whether they are to be confined to such portions of those assets as have not been earmarked by the settlement under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Sinnaswami Goundan Vs. Rama Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad563; (1941)1MLJ519
King, J.1. This appeal raises the question of subrogation. There are three mortgages with which the appeal is concerned. The first was executed in 1917 and the mortgagee's rights in that mortgage were finally assigned to the fifth defendant who filed a suit in 1933 and obtained a decree. That decree has been satisfied by means of two payments, one by the first defendant of Rs. 350 made in 1934 and one by the plaintiff of Rs. 398 made in 1935. By the payment of that Rs. 398 by the plaintiff the decree was satisfied in full. The second mortgage was in favour of the seventh defendant and was executed on the 6th June, 1918. The third was in favour of the plaintiff executed in September, 1922. Plaintiff has obtained a decree on this third mortgage and the question is as to the order in which the money which will be realised by the sale of the mortgaged properties is to be distributed. Plaintiff claims that he is to be paid first the sum of Rs. 398 which he utilised to pay off the first mort...
Tag this Judgment!Nadiminti Satyanarayanamurthi Vs. Malluri Papayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad713; (1941)2MLJ834
1. This is an appeal from the order of the' learned Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram dismissing an application by a transferee decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 16 to recognise the transfer of the decree in his favour and to execute it against the judgment-debtor's property. The decree that was transferred was a decree for costs in favour of an undischarged insolvent. He obtained the decree after the order of adjudication under the following circumstances. The order adjudging the transferor insolvent was passed in 1923. On a mortgage executed by him before the adjudication a suit was instituted in 1927 being O.S. No. 1 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram. An ex parte decree was passed against him and he sought to set aside that decree. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the application dismissed it on the ground that he had no right to present the application because he was an undischarged insolvent and the right to redeem vested in the Official Receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhaneni Venkayya Vs. Sri Rajah Vijaya Apparao Savai Aswarao Bahad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad352; (1942)1MLJ116
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The findings returned by the learned Subordinate Judge on the issues sent down to him are accepted. The result is that the appellant's property is not a riparian tenement in respect of which the appellant can claim any riparian right in the water flowing in the Thammileru. This disposes of the main contention in the second appeal.2. It is however argued that, before the plaintiff-respondent can claim any relief against the appellant on account of the diversion of the waters of Thammileru river through the channel newly dug, it is necessary for him to prove that the diversion has resulted in a material injury to him. The findings of the Courts below contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the District Munsif 's judgment, confirmed by the Subordinate Judge in, paragraph 12 of the appellate judgment make it clear that an injury has been sustained to enable the suit to be maintained. According to the Courts below, there has been a diminution in the supply of water ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Kanniah Naidu Vs. Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad685
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The girl is unable to maintain herself and Section Criminal P.C., does not limit the right of maintenance to minors. The age of the girl is therefore immaterial and the revision petition is dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: B. Titus and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad720
Horwill, J.1. The three appellants, who are police officers at Rayachoti, were charged in the Sessions Court of Cuddapah under Sections 348 and 330, Penal Code, with wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting a confession and voluntarily causing hurt for the same purpose. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 1940 was accused 1 in the lower Court. He has been found guilty under both counts and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine for each offence. The appellant in criminal Appeal No. 617 of 1940 was accused 2 in the lower Court. He has been found guilty only under Sections 323 and 342, Penal Code, because, although the learned Sessions Judge thought that be had committed some of the acts of which complaint was made, he was not satisfied that they were done for the purpose of extorting a confession. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 672 of 1940 was found guilty under Section 342, Penal Code, for the same reason. He was accused 3 in the lower Court. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kolanu Sesha Reddi Vs. Sri Kolanu Narasimha Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad803a
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner has been declared to be the trustee and the order of the Joint Magistrate cannot be sustained. it is accordingly set aside and the lands under attachment will be restored to the petitioner....
Tag this Judgment!C. Velayudham Pillai Vs. S.C. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad709; (1941)1MLJ617
Mockett, J.1. This is a civil revision petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsif of Ariyalur. The lower Court on an application by the respondent has ordered the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, to apply for a certified copy of his income-tax returns and profit and loss statements with particulars submitted by him to the Income-tax Officer, First Circle, Trichinopoly, over a period of several years. He is to produce them at the plaintiff's cost. It will be observed that the application was not in the precise terms of Order 11, Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code, to produce documents in the defendant's possession or power relating to the matter in suit but to obtain and produce copies of these documents. The learned District Munsif has made the order because he considers that a new situation has been created by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Rama Rao v. Venkataramayya : (1940)2MLJ257 . What that case decided was that certified copies of p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nachi Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad809
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The interpretation of Rule 1(d) of the Timber Transit Rules of 1939 by the Courts below is correct and there is no ground for interference. The revision petition is therefore dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramanujam Appalaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad504; (1941)1MLJ419
Horwill, J.Criminal Revision Case No. 789 of 1940.1. The petitioners were convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vizianagaram under Section 76 (2) of the Indian Companies Act for not holding a general meeting of the Company of which they are the directors within 18 months from the date of the incorporation; and they have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each.2. One of the defences of the petitioners was that the Registrar had condoned the delay. He was examined as a witness and he says:List of members and summary of share capital under Section 32 was delayed. The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies condoned that delay. That has nothing to do with the subject-matter of this case.3. The letter of the Registrar, which is Ex. I, says in paragraph 2:The delay in holding the general meeting is condoned and the list of members and summary is filed this time.4. This letter would appear to condone the failure of the petitioners and the other directors to hold a general meeting within 18 m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »