Chennai Court November 1941 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.
Rao Saheb Sedimbi Hanuniantha Row and ors. Vs. Nidumolu Seetaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ247
Burn, J.1. These appeals are by the defendants in O.S. No. 194 of 1934 on the file of the District Munsif of Masulipatnam. The appellants in S.A. No. 116 were defendants 1 and 2; the appellant in S. A. No. 203 was the 3rd defendant. The suit was filed against them by the respondent for damages for defamation. The respondent was an assistant teacher from 1919 to 1932 in the Hindu College High School at Masulipatam. The first defendant was the president and the second defendant the secretary of the managing committee of the High School. The third defendant was the headmaster. In 1932 the respondent was dismissed by the managing committee and he filed a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal, O.S. No. 5 of 1933 in the Court of the District Munsif of Masulipatam. To that suit the-first defendant as president of the managing committee was the only defendant. The second and third defendants were not impleaded. During the trial of the suit on the 29th March, 1933 the first defendant filed in...
K.K. Subbier Vs. K.M.S. Lakshmana Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ520
ORDERHorwill, J.1. A sabha of the Sourashtra community was registered as a society. In contravention of the provisions of Section 86 (d) of the Companies Act, the directors sanctioned a loan to the second accused--who was a director--for a period of one year., Before that year had terminated, the present complainant, who is one of the directors, moved his fellow-directors to cancel the earlier resolution. They refused to do this and resolved that as the year for which the loan was made had not then elapsed, they would not interfere. The complainant thereupon filed a complaint in the Court of the City First Class Magistrate of Madura under Section 86 (3) of the Companies Act against the present directory, who were parties to the second resolution. The Magistrate summoned witnesses, but before he had taken their evidence he acquitted all the accused on a reading of the complaint; for he was of opinion that no offence had been committed by the present directors in passing the second resol...
Sri Rajah Saheb Meharban-i-dostan Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Kumara Mahipa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ344
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These three appeals arise out of separate suits instituted by the appellant with the object of establishing title to certain lankas, or alluvial islands; in the river Goda-yari. In O.S. No. 52 of 1936, out of which Appeal No. 89 of 1937 arises, the appellant claimed the ownership of eighteen lankas, but only succeeded in respect of two of them. The suits out of which Appeals Nos. 151 and 152 of 1938, arise were dismissed in their entirety. All the suits were tried together by the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada and were decided in one judgment. In Appeal No. 89 of 1937 the respondent has filed a memorandum of cross objections which challenges the correctness of the Subordinate Judge's decision that the appellant' had established ownership of two of the lankas. It is common ground that if the questions of law which arise in Appeal No. 89 of 1937, are decided against the appellant, Appeals Nos. 151 and 152 of 1938, must fail. In the circumstances this judg...
Chavakula Venkatakrishnayya Vs. Talluri Malakondayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad306; (1942)1MLJ38
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner here was adjudicated an insolvent on a creditor's application under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and the order of adjudication was confirmed in appeal. The civil revision petition challenges the correctness of this appellate order.2. The grounds on* which the adjudication was challenged in the Courts below relate to the subsistence of the debt in favour of the petitioning creditor, having regard to an alleged agreement for sale and also having regard to a possible retrospective Operation of Act IV of 1938. These contentions are not now pressed. The argument before us has been confined to the question whether the judgment of this Court in C.M.A. Nos. 330 to 332 whereby the Court sale which formed that act of insolvency has been set aside, would warrant the cancellation of the order of adjudication. The judgment referred to was passed on the 23rd October, 1941, so that at the time of the adjudication and also at the time when the appeal to th...
In Re: Peria Chelliah Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad450; (1942)1MLJ503
Happell, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly of the murder of one Baliah Nadar on 13th of March last, at the village of Attankarai and has been sentenced to death.2. The deceased Baliah Nadar was married to a woman named Chellammal. The evidence is that this woman was not faithful to him, and that she was on terms of intimacy with a certain Chinna Chelliah Nadar. The accused was this man's elder brother. On the 13th of March, Chellammal and P.W. 6 went in the evening to the river in the neighbourhood of the village for water. Chellammal put her pot down, crossed the river and did not return. P.W. 6 on going back to the village informed Baliah Nadar's father (P.W. 5) of this and P.W. 5 sent Baliah Nadar to search for her. Neither Baliah Nadar nor Chellammal returned and inquiries made by P.W. 5 that night had no result. The next morning he went and made a search in the neighbourhood of the river and found marks of blood near a pit...
Muttathil Kuppu Amma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1944Mad108
Somayya, J. 1. The sole question in this appeal is whether Ex. 12 of 1896 evidences an out and out partition or only a maintenance arrangement. The suit is one for partition and is resisted on the ground that there was an out and out partition effected by Ex. 12 and that therefore the present suit is not maintainable. Both the lower Courts held that Ex. 12 evidences a partition and defendants 25 to 50 who support the plaintiff appeal. 2. Exhibit. 12 was executed on 6th October 1896. It is styled a Kudumba Nischaya Pathram on a deed of family arrangement and was executed by all the then existing members, adults and minors in all 41 in number. They were all members of the Muttathil tarwad. Sekhara Menon, the first executant, was the then karnavan and defendant 6 was the next anandravan. The document is a very lengthy one and contains as many as 54 paragraphs. A number of clauses have a bearing on the question whether the document is to be treated as a partition deed or as a mere maintena...
Official Receiver Vs. Sait Lalchand Khushalchand Firm and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Mad94
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal relates to certain complications which took place following the insolvency of defendant 2. The appellant here is the Official Receiver of Guntur who is defendant 1 in the suit. The plaintiff got a decree on 16th December 1930 against the insolvent and had made one ineffective attempt to execute it before the insolvency petition was filed in 1931. The adjudication was in 1932 and the Official Receiver in the administration of the estate sold certain assets of the insolvent and his three sons. The decree-holder proved for his debt before 25th March 1935. The Insolvency Court sanctioned the distribution of a dividend out of the realisations, which amounted to more than Rs. 9000. Unfortunately, the dividend had not been distributed when on 31st August 1936 the Insolvency Court annulled the adjudication for failure of the insolvent to apply for his discharge. It appears that this annulment order was passed without any enquiry regarding the state of the administra...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. S. Pappanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ104
Horwill, J.1. Pour persons, who were numbered as accused 1 to 4, were charged under Section 60 of the Indian Factories Act as the occupiers of a factory, and the 5th accused as the manager of that factory, with contravening the provisions of the Act by not fencing in a certain machine. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate imposed a very inadequate fine of Rs. 10 on the 5th accused and acquitted accused 1 to 4 altogether, on the ground that he believed their statements that they had left the affairs of the factory in the hands of the 5th accused. The Crown has appealed.2. The owners or occupiers of a factory cannot relieve themselves of their responsibilities for seeing that the requirements of the Factories Act are complied with by appointing a manager : they must also see that the manager carries out his duties. It is only when the manager has acted in express disobedience of their order and they have done their best to see that the provisions of the Act are complied with, that they can them...
Mariasoosai Vs. Arokkiam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad465; (1942)1MLJ108
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 2448 of 1940 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate of Nilakottai were convicted by that Magistrate and sentenced to pay a fine. Out of the proceeds of the fine compensation under Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was ordered to the complainant.2. In appeal, notice went as required under Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Public Prosecutor; and the conviction was set aside. Consequently, the petitioner, who was the complainant, was unable to realise the compensation ordered to be paid to him by the Second Class Magistrate. He has filed this revision petition in this Court against the order of acquittal, one of his grounds being that notice should have gone to him. He also urged that as the case was originally taken on the file of the First Class City Magistrate, Madura, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to transfer it to the Second Class Magistrate; because the charge-sheet revealed an offence punish...
Polavarapu Lingayya (Died) and ors. Vs. Vuputuri Punnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad183; (1942)1MLJ57
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The rule of Hindu law which makes a son, liable for his father's debts, provided they '.have not been incurred for illegal or immoral purposes has been discussed in innumerable cases in the Courts of India and many of the cases have been carried to the Privy Council This appeal calls for a further discussion of the rule in order to settle a conflict of opinion in this Court with regard to its application.2. In 1917 the first and second respondents with their father Lingayya constituted an undivided Hindu family. On the 22nd June, 1917, Lingayya purporting to act for his sons as well as himself, sold to the appellant for Rs. 1,350 land belonging to the family. The area covered by the deed was 6.34 acres. On the 19th July, 1917, the father died. On the 1st December, 1924, the first and second respondents filed in the District Munsif's Court a suit for a decree setting aside the sale to the appellant. They pleaded that their father was insane at the time ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »