Chennai Court August 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.
Chandanmal Vs. Rupakula Ramakrishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad173; (1941)2MLJ827
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff appeals against the decrees of the' lower Courts dismissing his suit against the defendants 2 and 3. The suit was filed to recover Rs. 2,086-14-6 being the amount due under a promissory note (Ex. A) executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff. The defence which found acceptance in the lower Courts is that the consideration so far as defendants 2 and 3 are concerned was the stifling of a criminal prosecution against the first defendant and therefore illegal under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Both the Courts found against the plaintiff.2. The first defendant pledged certain packages of goods representing that they contained bottles of condensed milk and 'jeevamrutham' bottles and borrowed money from the plaintiff. The money was not paid and the pledgee took steps to have the goods sold. When the packages were opened for the purpose of sale, it was found that they contained stones, husk, saw dust, waste paper etc. This was clearly a case ...
The President, Panchayat Board Vs. Bommala Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad270; (1941)2MLJ1034
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Three revision petitions have been filed by the President of the Panchayat Board, Mangalagiri, against the order of acquittal of the Sub-Magistrate of Mangalagiri of three persons alleged to have encroached upon the lands of the Panchayat Board.2. In two out of the three cases, the accused admitted the encroachment, and yet the Magistrate refused to fine them. The reasons he gave for his order were that the Panchayat Board had not proved that the encroachment was objectionable and that it was 'an instance of local influences and factions playing a large part with the Local Boards.' The learned Magistrate has entirely misconceived the scope of the sections of the Madras Local Boards Act relating to encroachments. The application of Section 159, which empowers the president of the Local Board to require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove an encroachment, does not depend upon the extent to which such encroachment is objectionable. The president has a right ...
In Re: Karuppannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ446
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Salem.2. The accused was convicted under Section 6 of the Fisheries Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30. The fine was not paid, and so the Magistrate sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment in default. The District Magistrate has referred this matter to this Court under Section 438, the District Magistrate being of opinion that it was not within the power of the Sub-Magistrate to sentence the accused to such a severe term in default.3. Section 67 of the Indian Penal Code, says:If the offence be punishable with fine only....the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed the following scale, that is to say, for any term not exceeding two months when the amount of the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees...4. The explanation of the Sub-Magistrate was called for. He seemed to be of the opinion that the scale mentioned referred not to the ac...
Ponnada Mallayya and anr. Vs. Ponnada Jagannadhamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad103; (1941)2MLJ567
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The suit is for partition by persons in joint possession and it is common ground that court-fee is payable under Article 17-B of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. The dispute is as to the value of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction and as pointed out in Vasireddi Veeramma v. Butchayya (1926) 52 M.L.J. 381 : I.L.R. Mad. 646 in which all the decisions were considered the valuation to be adopted for the purpose of jurisdiction is the actual market value of the property in suit. To the same effect are the decisions in Kattiya Pillai v. Ramaswamia Pillai : AIR1929Mad396 , and Karuppanna Nadar v. Karuppa Nadar : AIR1939Mad776 , and it is found by the lower Court that the value of the shares of the plaintiffs will be not less than Rs. 10,000. This suit should therefore have been instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Rajahmundry and the District Munsif has no jurisdiction to entertain it. The order of the District Munsif is therefore set aside and he is directed...
Sayed Abdul Huq Sahib Vs. Usman Khan Sahib Kabuli (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad167; (1941)2MLJ939
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. A point of limitation arises in this second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. The facts are these. The plaintiff sold certain immovable property to one Mohamed Ghouse on 15th January, 1920, for a sum of Rs. 1,750. A sum of Rs. 600 out of the sale price was not paid by Mohamed Ghouse who therefore executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for the said amount on the same date. Payments were made towards the amount due under the promissory note and endorsements were made on the note evidencing those payments. On 15th August, 1927, a sum of Rs. 187-7-0 remained due to the plaintiff under the note and he obtained a decree for the said amount in O.S. No. 302 of 1927. The present suit to enforce the vendor's lien was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant who purchased the properties in execution of a mortgage decree for sale obtained by a Fund against the owner, Ghouse Sahib, for the recovery of the balance due to him; and plaintiff's case is th...
Manickam Vs. the District Board, Represented by Its President
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad321; (1942)1MLJ195
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the resolution of the Taluk Board of Musiri dated 15th February, 1933 by which the establishment charges fixed by the Budget for 1933-1934 in the sum of Rs. 5,130 were reduced to Rs. 3,270 and the resolution dated 11th May, 1933 reducing the plaintiff's salary from Rs. 70 to Rs. 47 a month are both illegal and that he is entitled to be reinstated in the office and for the recovery of the difference between Rs. 70 and Rs. 47 from 1st April, 1933 up to 6 th June, 1934. The basis of the claim of the plaintiff is that both the said resolutions were passed in contravention of Section 67 of the Local Boards Act.2. Section 67 runs thus:(1) The sanction of the Local Board shall be obtained for all proposals for fixing or altering the number, designations and grades of its officers and servants and the salaries, fees and allowances payable to them.(2) Such proposals shall be taken into consid...
B.P. Nagi Reddy Vs. Panyam Sanjeeva Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ585
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The concurrent findings of fact of two Courts are that the petitioner, knowing that he had no manner of title to a certain house, went to that house and with the assistance of a number of friends who were accused in the first Court but have been subsequently acquitted, turned out P.W. 1 and the tenant of the house (P.W. 3) and locked the house. The first accused (Petitioner) was originally charged under Sections 147 and 448, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, but on appeal he was convicted under Section 448. The question is whether the petitioner has been properly convicted.2. The principal question is whether there was any criminal trespass at all, in that the intention of the accused was to set up a title to the house and not to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession. Vullappa v. Bheema Row : AIR1918Mad36(2) , makes it clear that a mere knowledge that he will annoy the owner of the house is not sufficient. That was a case in which the persons ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. B.V.A. Lury Company, Represented by A.V. Rag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad75; (1941)2MLJ487
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Under Section 32 of the Companies Act a company has to draw up a list of the members of the company and of the persons who have ceased to be members since the date of the last return. That list has to be completed within 21 days after the ordinary general meeting and a copy has to be sent, signed by a director or the manager or the secretary, to the Registrar. In this case, whereas the list should have been sent to the Registrar on or before 20th November, 1939, it was not in fact filed until 3rd January, 1940. A case was therefore filed against the company and its directors for not complying with the requirements under Section 32 of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cocanada held that there was no reason to think that the failure to submit this return was due to anything but negligence and that as the delay was not due to any wilful default, they were not guilty of any offence. He therefore acquitted them. The Crown has preferred an appeal with regard to the...
Panthanam Alias Alagianayakathammal and ors. Vs. P.R.M.K. Muhammad Abd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad73; (1941)2MLJ529
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. This is a batch of thirty second appeals. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Sitarama Rao. He contends that in the absence of a provision in the Estates Land Act conferring a right on the appellants to prefer second appeals, these are not competent and are liable to be dismissed. The question to decide is whether they are.2. They arise out of objections made by the respondent-landholder for appraisement of the crop or division of the produce under Section 74 of the Estates Land Act. On receiving these applications, the Collector deputed an officer, as required by Section 75 of the Act, to make the division or appraisement. The Officer appointed by the Collector carried out the orders and made a report. Objections were raised on behalf of the appellants to this. They were to the effect that the rent was payable in money and not in kind. These objections were disallowed. The appellants went up to the District Court in appeal but the Collector's decisio...
Narayana Venkatachalamiah Vs. Putika Venkatiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad24; (1941)2MLJ588
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this second appeal brought a suit for recovery of a sum of money due on a mortgage deed executed by Venkatayya the first defendant, in his favour on 14th November, 1932. The first defendant had executed a mortgage of the items covered by the plaintiff's mortgage and of some other items in favour of the second defendant the Co-operative society on 7th September, 1927. There being some amount due on the mortgage in favour of the second defendant, proceedings were taken under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act of 1932. In terms of Section 51, Clause (1) (b) there being a dispute between the society and a member, the dispute was referred to the Registrar for decision. The Registrar referred the dispute for disposal to an arbitrator under Section 51, Clause (2) (c). The arbitrator gave his decision, which under Section 51, Clause (6) (&) is final and is not liable to be called in question in any Civil or Revenue Court. Thereafter the so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »