Chennai Court May 1941 Judgments
In Re: S. Subramanya Sarma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad808; (1941)2MLJ156
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These criminal revision petitions raise the question whether an advocate who is accused with others of a criminal offence can appear at the trial as counsel for his co-accused. The petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 443 of 1941 is a member of the English Bar and has been enrolled as an advocate of this Court. He and six others, two of whom are the petitioners in Crl. R.C. No. 442 of 1941, are accused of having been parties to a criminal conspiracy, the object of which was inter alia to commit or abet the commission of certain illegal acts by the public generally or by a class of persons exceeding ten. The illegal acts are specified in the charge sheet. They number six. It will be sufficient to quote the first and the last of these allegations:(1) Influencing the conduct or attitude of the public or of any section of the public in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the defence of British India or to the efficient prosecution of the war.''(6) to unite in...
Tag this Judgment!Turlapati Seshayya Vs. Bollapalli Venkataramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad278; (1941)2MLJ309
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question regarding the effect of Section 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938 on which there appears to be no decided case. The sale which the petitioner sought to set aside was held on the 29th March, 1938, that is to say, just one week after Act IV of 1938 came into force. Section 23 applies in terms to sales held on or after the 1st October, 1937 and the only future limit which is expressly laid down relates to the date within which an application is to be made, which is within 90 days of the commencement of the Act. It is argued that within these 90 days any judgment-debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act may apply for a sale to be set aside even though that sale has been held after the Act came into force. The only materials for deciding whether this view of the section is correct or not are the use of the tenses in the terms of the section and the alternative provisions found in the Act to relieve agriculturists whose property is b...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvengadatha Aiyangar Vs. Sannappan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad799(2); (1941)2MLJ307
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition raises the question whether Section 9 of Madras Act IV of 1938 applies to a debt incurred by an agriculturist after the commencement of the Act in discharge of an anterior debt incurred before the commencement of the Act. The debt in question is due on a promissory note dated the 2nd October, 1938 which discharged a prior promissory note dated the 1st October, 1935. The learned District Munsif has applied the proviso to Section 9 Clause (1) and has treated the debt as a renewal of an earlier debt upon which interest up to the 22nd March, 1938 is to be reduced to five per cent.2. Section 9 in terms applies to debts incurred on or after the 1st October, 1932, and it does not say that the section shall not apply to debts incurred after the commencement of the Act, namely, 22nd March, 1938. But the scaling down machinery under this section has the effect only of reducing interest up to the date of the commencement of the Act, and from this it ma...
Tag this Judgment!Pandara Sannadhi, Tiruvannamalai Adhinam by Trustee Sri Deivasigamani ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad908; (1941)2MLJ544
Somayya, J.1. These are three appeals filed against the decrees of the Additional City Civil Judge in O.S. Nos. 1103, 1653 and 1662 of 1938. A common judgment was delivered by the trial Court and the decision in all the three cases depends upon the question whether the building in each suit is a choultry and therefore exempted under Section 101 (b) of the City Municipal Act. The exemption was claimed on the wording of the Amending Act X of 1936. The provision exempts the following buildings from the property tax : (1) choultries for the occupation of which no rent is charged and (2) choultries the rent charges for occupation of which is used exclusively for charitable purposes. The respondent municipality levied taxes on the three buildings in question rejecting the claim of the appellant that they are exempted under Section 101 (b) of the Amended Act. The tax not having been paid, the three suits out of which these appeals arise were filed by the respondent Corporation for recovery of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Mahadeva Royal Y.B. Vs. Rajah Veerabasava Chikka Royal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad368; (1942)1MLJ309
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The decree passed by this Court was one of affirmance although our conclusions on the two main questions of fact which were vital for the disposal of the appeal were diametrically opposed to what were arrived at by the trial Court in the suit. The suggestion by the learned Advocate-General that it is not a decree of affirmance as we interfered with the lower Court's decision in regard to costs is not sound in our opinion. The decree dismissing the suit was maintained by this Court and it is immaterial if we have superseded the order passed by the trial Court in regard to costs. The petitioner does not wish to appeal against the order directing the parties to bear their own costs, which is an order in his favour but in respect of the decree of dismissal of his suit that was passed against him.2. It is true that large Stakes are involved in this appeal; but that in itself would be no ground for ...
Tag this Judgment!Gade Subbayya Vs. Raja Kandukuri Venkata Hanumantha Bhushanarao and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad817; (1941)2MLJ125
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These petitions relate to the petitioner's claim to recover his costs, etc., in Privy Council Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1933 in which a preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 26,302-3-6 passed in favour of the petitioner was upheld by His Majesty in Council on the 26th September, 1936.2. The petitioner applied in C.M.P. No. 949 of 1939 in the lower Court for a final decree for the balance of the amount due under the preliminary decree after giving credit for amounts paid from time to time by the respondent judgment-debtor, and the latter filed LA. No. 506 of 1938 to scale down the decree under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Both these applications were dealt with together and the learned Subordinate Judge finding that sums already paid by the respondent amounted to more than twice the principal amount of the debt after adjusting such payments towards all costs decreed to the petitioner including the costs now claimed dir...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Sahib V. Subbayya and ors. Vs. C.T. Machayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad365; (1942)1MLJ207
ORDER7. The only point argued by Mr. Bhujanga Rao was that the decree against his client is not in accordance with the judgment. This matter was dealt with by the District Judge in paragraph 40 of his judgment. That related to the liability for the value of the shares. . In the judgment the learned Judge directed that Narasinga Rao should pay half the value of the shares, vie., Es. 2,550 in the first instance and the balance of Es. 2,550 should be paid by him in case that amount is not recovered from Kanjilala who was made liable for the other half. The decree will accordingly be modified and this order will be incorporated in the main judgment which we delivered....
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Udayar and ors. Vs. Sevu Rama Aru Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ291
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the orders passed on two applications, namely, C.M.P. No. 5641 of 1940 (S.E. No. 29098 of 1940) and C.M.P. No, 5629 of 1940. C.M.P. No. 5629 of 1940, was an application to excuse the delay by deducting the time taken in C.M.A. Nos. 643 and 644 of 1938 on the file of the High Court in computing the time for the application for rehearing of A.S. No. 99 of 1936 on the file of the High Court. C.M.P. No. 641, was an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the appeal against the applicants and for rehearing the said appeal. On application No. 5629 of 1940, we passed the following order:We see no reason to interfere. Dismissed.2. By reason of this order we thought it unnecessary to pass any orders on C.M.P. No. 5641 of 1940. Mr. Sivaramakrishna Aiyar has contended that he was entitled to make the present application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council under Sections 109 and 110 of the Civi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vaidyanatha Aiyar Vs. V.N. Srinivasa Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ596
Wadsworth, J. 1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application for stay of execution under Section 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioner, who was also the applicant before the lower Court is admittedly a non-agriculturist. In 1933, he and his brother (who is an agriculturist) were members of a joint family and they executed a promissory note which is said to be in discharge of a family liability. In November, 1934, there was a partition between the two brothers and at that partition the debt . in question was allotted to the present petitioner, though of course this arrangement would not bind the creditor. In 1936, the creditor got a decree against both the brothers. The decree is based on the joint liability of the brothers under the promissory note and does not proceed on any family liability. Now the agriculturist brother has taken no action to get his liability under this debt scaled down. But the petitioner (the non-agriculturist brother) tried to stop execution ...
Tag this Judgment!Tirugnanavalli Ammal, by Agent Rajamanikkam Pillai Vs. P. Venugopala P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad831; (1941)2MLJ497
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal and the alternative revision petition arise out of an order allowing an application under Section 20 of the Madras Act IV of 1938 to stay proceedings in execution of a decree. The only question argued before us relates to the eligibility of the respondents, who were the petitioners before the lower Court, to be agriculturists having regard to Proviso C to Section 3 (2) of Act IV. It is now settled that no appeal lies from an order under Section 20, so that we have to consider whether, if there is an error, there are grounds to justify interference in revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. It is common ground that the respondents will be excluded from the category of agriculturists if house No. 105 is deemed to be a house in respect of which the 1st respondent has been assessed to property tax. That house admittedly forms part of the property of the Chockapuraswami Mutt and is held by the 1st respondent under a usufructuary mortgage of the year 193...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›