Chennai Court December 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.
Yekkala Venkataramayya Vs. Achugatla Baba Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad401; (1942)1MLJ406
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding a sum of Rs. 550 to the father of one Hajee Peera Sahib who was injured in an accident arising out of his employment by the appellant, on 8th February, 1939. The injury was caused to has left hand, and from it he developed tetanus and died on 16th February.2. One point raised in the appeal is that the death of Hajee Peera was due to his own fault in not having his injury treated by a qualified medical man and that if that had been done, the injury could eaily have been cured. It is unnecessary however for Us to discuss this question as the appeal must in our opinion succeed upon another point.3. The point put simply is, that the respondent had no locus standi to make the application to the Commissioner. He is not a dependent of the deceased workman within the meaning of the definition of 'dependent' in the Workmen's Compensation Act. This point, it may be mentioned, was made in the counter-aff...
In Re: Sri S.P., First Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1941
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ234
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a first grade pleader practising at Markapur in the Kurnool district. He has been charged with professional misconduct in that he wrote a letter to the Governor of Madras, wilfully and maliciously making untrue statements reflecting on the District Munsiff of Markapur. The charge has been investigated by the District Judge of Kurnool and he has reported to this Court that it has been fully substantiated.2. In the letter referred to the respondent accused the District Munsiff of being a sympathiser with the satyagraha, movement and that on the 28th February, 1941, he granted an application of an advocate for adjournment of a case made on the ground that he desired to go to Cumbum to see a friend offering satyagraha. He added:I am the leader of the Bar here. I have put in 26 years in the profession. I may be permitted to submit, this sort of sympathy of a Judicial Officer, with the satyagraha movement which is working havoc in the count...
Modern Automobiles by Its Proprietor R.G. Patel Vs. Travancore Nationa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ241
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application by one Mr. Patel the proprietor of Modern Automobiles carrying on business at Bombay for payment of two sums, Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 433-2-0. The case for the applicant is that he was a customer of the Bombay branch of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd., and had a current account with them, that he delivered on the 16th June, 1938, a cheque bearing the said date for Rs. 1,500 drawn in his favour on the Anderson branch of the bank at Madras and another cheque' for a sum of Rs. 433-2-0 drawn in his favour on the same branch for realisation and credit in his current account that according to the course of dealings he had with the bank he could draw on the said bank only after the said amounts were realised and intimation thereof had been given to him, that before he received any such intimation the bank suspended payment and therefore the said moneys realised by the bank must be held to be moneys held in trust for him and he is therefore...
Karamsetti Guravaiah Vs. V. Rangiah, Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad415; (1942)1MLJ283
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. This is an appeal under -the Letters Patent from a decision of King, J., dismissing an appeal which the appellant had filed challenging the correctness of an order passed by the District Judge of Nellore. The respondent, who is the Official Receiver of Nellore, says that no appeal lay to this Court from the order of the District Judge and this question has been argued first.2. On the 15th January, 1935, the appellant obtained a final decree for sale in a suit which he had filed against the second respondent to enforce a mortgage. In the month of August in. that year the second respondent was adjudicated an insolvent. The appellant, who says he had no knowledge of the adjudication proceeded to execute his decree, and on the 17th August, 1936, the property was sold by the Court. The appellant was the purchaser. On the 16th September, 1936, the first respondent filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, in which he asked for an o...
Pachigola Satyanarayanamurthi (Died) and ors. Vs. Karatam Sathiraju an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad525; (1942)1MLJ506
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought by respondents 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the mortgagors) for redemption of two mortgages executed by them in favour of the appellant. The first mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 10,000 and the second for Rs. 7,300, the same property, 71 acres 40 cents of land, being mortgaged in both cases. The mortgagors sold 43 acres 40 cents out of the mortgaged property to the fourth respondent (hereinafter referred to as the purchaser) for a sum of Rs. 34,488 out of which Rs. 11,694 was directed to be paid in full discharge of the second mortgage referred to above and Rs. 19,680 was to be paid in part payment of the first mortgage. The purchaser, however, failed to carry out these directions and both the mortgage debts remained outstanding when the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act came into force. The mortgagors then brought these suits for redemption of the mortgages, claiming the benefit of the Act as agriculturists and de...
In Re: Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad377
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application by one Mr. Patel the proprietor of Modern Automobiles carrying on business at Bombay for payment of two sums, Rs. 1500 and Rs. 433-2-0. The case for the applicant is that he was a customer of the Bombay branch of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. and had a current account with them, that he delivered on 16th June 1938 a cheque bearing the said date for Rs. 1500, drawn in his favour on the Anderson branch of the bank at Madras and another cheque for a sum of Rs. 433-2-0 drawn in his favour on the same branch for realisation and credit in his current account, that according to the course of dealings he had with the bank he could draw on the said bank only after the said amounts were realised and intimation thereof had been given to him, that before he received any such intimation the bank suspended payment and therefore the said moneys realised by the bank must be held to be moneys held in trust for him and he is therefore en...
In Re: Sri V. Varadaraja Mudaliar, Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ160
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is an advocate of this Court. Two charges of professional misconduct hare been framed against him. These have been investigated by a tribunal constituted under the Bar Councils Act. The tribunal having considered the evidence drew up its report, but unfortunately one of the members, Mr. T.S. Venkatesa Aiyar, died before the document was ready for signature. In these circumstances, the learned Counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection that the report is not one which this Court can consider, having been signed only by two members of the tribunal. He says that a new tribunal will have to be constituted and the case investigated de novo.2. Rule 7 of the Rules relating to the procedure to be followed by tribunals or District Courts in cases referred to them for inquiry under the Bar Councils Act reads as. follows:(1) The tribunal or Court, having heard the evidence for the complainant and the respondent, shall report ...
A.R. Palanisami Gounder Vs. Bagavathi Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1941
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ246
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The complainant complained to the Magistrate that he had filed a suit in the Civil Court against the first accused with respect to his land, that he had filed an application in the suit for attachment of the standing crops on the land and for distraint of the first accused's-cattle, and that the petitioner, joining with the first accused, had removed the harvested crops and the cattle to his own field and claimed them as his with the object of preventing the Receiver from taking possession of this property. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that an offence punishable under Section 421, Indian Penal Code, had been made out against the first accused, but not against the petitioner. The complainant took the matter to the District Magistrate in revision, who very rightly remarked that the allegations in the complaint and in the sworn statement, which were the only material on which the Magistrate had to act, implicated the petitioner equally with the first accused. H...
M. Kuppuswami Mudaliar Vs. S. Pannlal Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad303; (1942)1MLJ187
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff whose suit for the recovery of certain empty Standard Oil Company four-gallon drums or their value has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The defendant, while admitting that he received these drums, pleaded that he had returned the drums. Both the lower Courts disbelieved this plea and held that the defendant had not returned any of the drums. The suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Article 49 of the Limitation Act. That Article runs thus: Suit for other specific mo- Three years. When the property isvable property, or for compen- wrongfully taken or injured, orsation for wrongfully taking or when the detainer's possessioninjuring or wrongfully detaining becomes unlawful.the same.In this case the plaint alleged that specific movable property was to be returned and that that was the understanding. The prayer is for the return of these drums. Th...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chinnalatchumana Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad531; (1942)1MLJ586
Horwill, J.1. The Municipality of Salem brought a case under Section 313, read with Section 182 of the District Municipalities Act against a certain person for having encroached on a public street. The Second Class Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Salem considered all. the evidence relating to the ownership of this lane and came to the conclusion that it was a public street. He pointed out that even if it were a private street, it would be punishable to disregard an order that the encroachment should be removed; for Section 182 makes no, mention of the word ' public' immediately before the word ' street'. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate came to the conclusion that the street was a private one. He did not, consider the second finding of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate that even if it were a private road, the section would apply; but he concluded his judgment by saying:Since the question of property rights over the lane is in dispute between the Municipality and the appell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »