Chennai Court August 1941 Judgments
A.R.M.T.T. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. S.P.L. Subbiah Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad34; (1941)2MLJ653
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the appellant to scale down a preliminary decree on a mortgage. The mortgage in question was originally contracted on 5th January, 1931, on the security of house property situated within a municipality. The suit was filed on the mortgage in 1937, resulting in a preliminary decree dated 26th February, 1938 and it is that preliminary decree which the appellant sought to scale down under Section 19 of the Act. In 1938 the decree-holder, not being satisfied with the security given under the mortgage, filed two applications : one for the appointment of a receiver and the other for the attachment of certain agricultural lands belonging to the judgment-debtor By way of defence to these applications the judgment-debtor came forward with an offer to give the agricultural lands, of which attachment was claimed, as additional security for the amount of the debt. This offer was accepted and on the execution of a bond (Ex. D) dated 23rd Ju...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rangaswami Naicker and ors. Vs. M. Raju Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ36
Gentle, J.1. The applicants are the plaintiffs in the suit which was referred to the learned Official Referee for enquiry. They served upon the Income-tax Officer a subpoena requiring him to produce some account books in his possession which are said to have belonged to the firm of Cunniappa Nayagar for the years 1930 and 1934-35. The Income-tax Officer does not produce them.2. The present application is made by the plaintiffs against the Income-tax Officer calling upon him to show cause why he should not be directed to produce the account books mentioned in the subpoena. ' In his affidavit, the Income-tax Officer says that of the account books mentioned in the subpoena he has only one book containing the monthly trial balance for the year 1930 and further he says this book was produced in the course of proceedings under the Income-tax Act for the year 1938-39. Learned Counsel on his behalf claims that the Income-tax : Officer is entitled to refuse to produce the books either in pursua...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Negamam Sri Lakshmi Vilasa Draviya Sagaya Nidhi Limited by Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad386; (1942)1MLJ274
Abdur Rahman, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for taking an account from the defendant bank in respect of the 20 bank shares of the value of Rs. 500 which stood in the name of the plaintiff's husband, A. Goalakrishna Chettiar and to pass a decree against the bank for payment of the balance that may be found due to her after giving her credit for the yearly dividends on those shares on the one side and after debiting her with any liability incurred by her husband touching those shares on- the other.2. The defendant bank denied the claim and contended inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation. It is this plea with which I am concerned in the present second appeal. The suit was decreed by both the lower Courts and was held to be within time. The bank appeals.3. Although no Article of the Limitation Act was referred to by the defendant bank in their written statement as required by the forms of general defences given in the Civil Procedure Code (Sch....
Tag this Judgment!Kolaparathi Venkatasubbiah Vs. Madallapalli Venkatasubbiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad371; (1942)1MLJ311
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant and he filed the suit for recovery of possession of three items of immovable properties on the strength of a Court sale held in execution of a money decree obtained against one Yegnayya.2. The contesting respondents are subsequent purchasers of the properties from the heirs-at-law of Yegnayya and their defence is that no title passed to the plaintiff under the Court sale. Yegnayya was adjudged an insolvent and his adjudication was subsequently annulled under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for failure to apply for discharge within time. While annulling the adjudication the Insolvency Court passed an order under Section 37 of the Act vesting the debtor's properties in the Official Receiver for a period of one year.3. Before the year expired, the appellant brought the properties to sale without impleading the Receiver and purchased the properties. It appears that the debtor died before the sale and his heirs were brought on record ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T.A. Balakrishna Odayar (Deceased)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad586; (1943)1MLJ214
Krishnaswamy Ayyangar, J.1. This is an application taken out by the Official Assignee with respect to a settlement made by his predecessor-in-office of a claim to preferential payment made by the respondent. By that settlement the then Official Assignee had agreed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 12,000 against a claim of Rs. 24,000 or thereabouts. In pursuance of the settlement, he paid a sum of Rs. 6,000 and there still remains a balance of Rs. 6,000 to be paid on foot of the settlement. The Official Assignee who entered into this settlement did so without applying for and obtaining leave of the Court under Section 68 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909). The present Official Assignee has very properly placed the matter before the Court with the request that the Court may either give its approval to the settlement or give such other directions as the Court may consider it proper. The question thus raised by the present application is one of considerable importanc...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.R. Kalyanarama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad199
ORDERBurn, J.1. The findings of fact are sufficient to sustain the conviction. It is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's speech must be considered as a whole and that he could not be convicted unless the whole speech were found to be a 'prejudicial act.' I see no good reason for supposing that a particular portion of a speech cannot constitute a 'prejudicial act.' There is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the sentence of fine should be remitted or largely reduced since the petitioner is not a wealthy man. As the learned Sessions Judge has already reduced the sentence of imprisonment from eight months to three, maintaining the fine, I am not prepared to reduce the sentence further by reducing the fine. The petition is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!M. Rangaswami Naicker and Others Vs. M. Raju Naicker and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR693(Mad)
The applicants are the plaintiffs in the suit which was referred to the learned Official Referee for enquiry. They served upon the Income-tax Officer a subpoena requiring him to produce some account books in his possession which are said to have belonged to the firm of Cunniappa Nayagar for the year 1930 and 1934-35. The Income-tax Officer does not produce them.The present application is made by the plaintiffs against the Income-tax Officer calling upon him to show cause why he should not be directed to produce the account books mentioned in the subpoena. In his affidavit, the Income-tax Officer says that of the account books mentioned in the subpoena he has only one book containing the monthly trial balance for the year 1930 and further he says this book was produced in the course of proceedings under the Income-tax Act for the year 1938-39. Learned Counsel on his behalf claims that the Income-tax Officer is entitled to refuse to produce the books either in pursuance of the subpoena s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venkatachalam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad100; (1941)2MLJ661
Burn, J.1. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore on a charge of murder (Section 302) and two charges of administering poison with intent to commit an offence. The facts found against him were that on the night of the 6th December last at Pollachi he gave some food with which dhatura was mixed to three Malayalees in order that he might rob them of whatever they had on their person. The three men were found next morning lying out in the open and they were taken to the hospital. The medical evidence showed that all of them had been given dhatura. Two of them recovered completely. The third developed pneumonia and died on the 13th December,2. There is no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Sessions Judge with regard to these facts. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken me through the evidence of the important prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2. These are the two men who recovered from the dhatura poisoning. P.W. 1 is the son of the deceased. T...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kora Vathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ694
ORDERBurn, J.1. In these cases the order directing the substantive sentences of imprisonment to take effect on the expiry of the periods of imprisonment imposed under Section 123, Criminal Procedure Code, is illegal. Vide the second proviso to Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code. The order in each of these cases is accordingly set aside. The sentence in each case must take effect from the date on which it was pronounced....
Tag this Judgment!Al. Sp. S. Rm. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Chinnamuthu Batcha Rowther and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad145; (1941)2MLJ751
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a Small Cause Suit on a promissory note executed by the first defendant, an agriculturist and guaranteed by the second defendant, a non-agriculturist. The letter of guarantee is in the following terms:Please get a pronote from S. Chinnamuthu Batcha Rowther the bearer of this letter and give Rs. 300. In the event of his not discharging it by paying principal and interest, I also shall be liable and pay the amount.2. The debt of the first defendant was only partially discharged and the suit was filed. Against the first defendant, the plaintiff gave effect to the defences open to him as an agriculturist and claimed only Rs. 95-9-0. Against the second defendant the plaintiff claimed Rs. 157-14-4, the full amount due under the contract. In the lower Court the second defendant successfully claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of the reduction of the principal debtor's liability by reason of the terms of Section 128 of the Cont...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »