Chennai Court April 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.
Kangati Mahanandi Reddi Vs. Panikalapati Venkatappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad21; (1941)2MLJ631
King, J.1. The respondent 1 in this appeal was the plaintiff in two suits which came finally to be numbered as O.S. No. 15 and O.S. No. 24 of 1938 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kurnool. These were suits mainly, and in O.S. No. 15 wholly, for the recovery of money clue on promissory notes. The claim in O.S. No. 15 was for Rs. 21,788, that in O.S. No. 24 for Rs. 4,698. While these suits were pending respondent 1 on 1st November, 1937 executed a deed of transfer in favour of the present appellant. By this deed he assigned to the appellant 'the entire amounts due in respect of the two suits' for a consideration of Rs. 8,000. The consideration was to be paid within fifteen days of the passing of the decrees in the two suits, but in no case before a date in February 1938. It was also provided that if a decree were not granted in the more important suit (O.S. No. 15) payment of the Rs. 8,000 would not be due, and any payment which might actually have been made should be refunded. On...
M. Ramanathan Chettiar (Minor) and anr. Vs. Pr. Km. Subramaniam Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad747; (1941)2MLJ123
King, J.1. This petition raises a question under Section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act. The facts are that the petitioner applied to the Debt Conciliation Board under the Act in February, 1939. His application was allowed to remain pending for eight months and was then dismissed, the Board granting him in its order of dismissal liberty to apply again. While the first application was pending, stay of execution of a decree against the petitioner was in force. The second application was made in February, 1940, and the petitioner again applied for stay of execution of the same decree. Stay was refused by the learned Subordinate Judge, and the question at issue in this revision petition is whether the learned Judge had any jurisdiction to refuse stay.2. It is conceded by the learned advocate for the petitioner in his argument before me that if the application to the Board of February, 1940, is to be treated as a new application in respect of the same debt, no stay can be granted. T...
Ramaswami Reddiar Vs. the Official Receiver of South Arcot and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad827; (1941)2MLJ382
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Arcot setting aside a sale by the Official Receiver of items 1 to 10 of an insolvent's property on the 6th May, 1938.2. The Official Receiver in the due course of his administration of the assets of the insolvent held a sale on the 30th August, 1937 which was duly advertised. The highest bidder was the appellant; and the sale was knocked down in his favour for Rs. 113, of which he deposited Rs. 32 at once and a further Rs. 81 on the 13th September, 1937. In accordance with the practice of the Official Receiver, he said that the sale in the appellant's favour would be subject to such further bids as might be offered by creditors. He appears to have sent notices to the other creditors telling them that if they did not make any higher bids, the sale would be confirmed in the appellant's favour. On the 4th September, 1937 the respondent sent an offer to the Official Receiver which reached him on the 6th Septem...
In Re: S. Krishnamurthi Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad690; (1942)2MLJ509
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is the author of a book written in Tamil and entitled 'Vira Savarkar' which has been translated as 'Savarkar the Hero'. It purports to be a biography of Mr. V. D. Savarkar, who has been the President of the Hindu Mahasabha since 1937. On 26th November, 1940, the Provincial Government declared the book to be forfeited to His Majesty under Section 19 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, read, with Section 4 (1)(a). The petitioner has applied to this Court under Section 23 for an order setting aside the declaration of forfeiture. The learned Crown Prosecutor has raised the preliminary objection that the application is out of time, and therefore it is necessary to decide this question before dealing with the merits of the application.2. Section 23 states that a person having an interest in property in respect of which an order of forfeiture has been made may within two months from the date of the order apply to the High Court to...
Minor Nagarajan Represented by His Adoptive Mother and Guardian Indra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad296; (1941)2MLJ298
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is preferred against an order allowing an application under Section 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938. No appeal lies but a petition has been filed to convert the appeal into a Civil Revision Petition. We have allowed that petition subject to payment of the deficient court-fee and have treated the appeal as a Civil Revision Petition. The decree which gave rise to the sale was passed in a suit on a simple mortgage dated the 17th May, 1928. The suit was filed in 1934. While the suit was pending the mortgagor sold the equity of redemption to the eighth defendant and the sale-deed recites that the sale was subject to a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the sixth defendant. The preliminary decree was passed on the 7th March, 1935. Subsequently there was a final decree and certain items were sold before Act IV of 1938 was operative. On the 17th November, 1937, the decree-holder brought to sale items 4 and 5 and purchased them himself. On the 20th June, 1938, that is to...
Bayyana Veeraraghava Rao and ors. Vs. the Debt Conciliation Board and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad873; (1941)2MLJ366
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. I am in entire agreement with the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. If administered in accordance with its spirit the Debt Conciliation Act should, in spite of its defects, prove beneficial, but my experience, gained from the hearing of petitions for the quashing of orders of Debt Conciliation Boards, convinces me that the Act has not been administered by some Boards in the way it ought to be administered. I have noticed a tendency to use the powers conferred by Section 10(2) of the Act arbitrarily and at times there has been flagrant misuse of the section. When a debtor applies to the Board for settlement of his debts, he has to embody in his application detailed information. One requirement is that he shall state the amount and particulars of all claims against him, together with the names and residences of his creditors so far as they are known to him or can by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence be ascertained by him....
Raman Nayar and ors. Vs. Kesavan Embrandiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad816
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The only question argued by Mr. Govinda Menon in this second appeal is that the finding of the learned District Judge that the plaintiff requires the land bona fide for his cultivation is wrong because it is based on a wrong interpretation of Clause (5) of Section 14, Malabar Tenancy Act. After listening to the learned Counsel on both sides I am of opinion that the contention of Mr. Govinda Menon should prevail and that the case should be sent back for a revised finding. Section 14 so far as it is material for the decision in the appeal runs thus:Section 14. - 'No suit for eviction of a cultivating verumpattamdar from his holding shall lie at the instance of his landlord except on the following grounds : Clause (5) that at the end of an agricultural year the landlord requires the holding bona fide for his own cultivation or for that of any member of his family or tarwad or tavazhi who has a proprietary and beneficial interest therein.2. In construing this sectio...
The Right Honourable the Secretary of State for India in Council, Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad530; (1941)2MLJ47
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Chodavaram to recover with interest a sum of Rs. 389-8-0 which he alleged the Government had unlawfully made him pay. The respondent was the President of the Union Board of Dharmavaram, Vizagapatam district, from 1921 to the month of April, 1928. On the 30th March, 1928, the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts passed an order of surcharge against the respondent in respect of a sum of Rs. 455-8-0 on the ground that he had failed to collect arrears of house tax to this amount during the years 1921-22, 1922-23 and 1923-24, and consequently the claims had become barred by the law of limitation.2. Rule 6 of the rules relating to the powers of auditors to surcharge, framed under Section 199(2)(0) of the Madras Local Boards Act, provides that any person aggrieved by a disallowance, surcharge or charge made against him, may apply to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction to set the orde...
Crown Prosecutor Vs. Abdul Wahab and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad767
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondents of an offence under Section 37, Clause (3), Madras City Police Act. Respondent 2 is the clerk of respondent 1 and the prosecution case is that on information that respondent 1 was receiving bets on horse races in the Suparikunta in Badai Sahib Street, P.W. 1, the Sub-Inspector sent P.W. 2 with a slip, Ex. B-2, containing the names of horses and four annas. P.W. 2 handed over the slip and cash to respondent 1 and respondent 1 retained the cash and passed the slip to respondent 2. Respondent 2 wrote something over the slips and gave them to respondent 1 and respondent 1 returned one slip, Ex. A, to P.W. 2. The Sub-Inspector rushed to the place and ten betting slips, Ex. B series, an acceptance form Ex. c and fifteen annas in cash were found on respondent l. Respondent 2 had M.O. 2, the pencil, on him and Ex. A, the betting slip, was with P.W. 2. These facts are spoken to by P.Ws. 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›