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.
The Nagore Durga Represented by Its Managing Trustees S. Sultan Kaliba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad79; (1941)2MLJ604
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question in this second appeal is whether Section 17 of Madras Act IV of 1938 saves limitation in respect of a suit for arrears of rent for fasli 1344 due from a non-agriculturist. The arrears in question accrued due on the 1st July, 1935, the suit was filed on the 1st December, 1938, and would clearly be barred by limitation unless the plaintiffs-appellants here are entitled to the benefit of Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 says:Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, or the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, or in any law of limitation or procedure in force for the time being, no suit or execution proceedings in respect of arrears of rent accrued for fasli 1345 or any prior fasli which, under the existing law, would become barred between the 1st October, 1937 and the 30th September, 1938, shall be so barred and the landholder...shall be entitled to file a suit or institute execution proceedings for recovery thereof, on or before the...
K.C. Pandalai Vs. the South Indian General Assurance Company Ltd. (In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad95; (1941)2MLJ595
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by Gentle, J., confirming the action of the Official Liquidator of the South Indian General Assurance Company, Ltd, in placing the appellant's name in the list of contributories. The company was formed in the year 1929. On the 29th August, 1940, this Court passed an order directing that it be wound up compulsorily. During the eleven years the company was operating, it never made a profit. Each year, in fact, showed a loss and long before the winding up order was passed, the company was in a precarious position. The appellant was a director of the company and was also its managing agent. The managing agents were stated to be K. C. Pandalai and Company, but it is common ground that the appellant is the sole proprietor of that firm. In 1936 the company owed the appellant a sum of Rs. 16,000. The appellant held 120 preference and 220 ordinary shares of Rs. 50 each in respect of which only Rs. 15 per share had been pai...
Vallur China Kondayya (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Sidavarapu Ramalinga Red ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad271; (1941)2MLJ1060
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question arising in this appeal is one under Section 23 of the Madras Act IV of 1938. The first respondent obtained a decree against the appellants in March, 1936 and in execution of that decree a sale of the appellants property was held on 22nd November, 1937. The property was purchased by the decree-holder who on 18th February, 1938, got possession of one item with which we are now concerned. Act IV of 1938 came into force on the 22nd March, 1938 and thereafter the judgment-debtors filed an application under the Act to set aside the sale and to scale down the decree. The sale was set aside on the 7th November, 1938 and the decree was scaled down. The judgment-debtors then applied for re-delivery of the property and claimed that the profits on the land should be adjusted towards the decree as scaled down. On objection they gave up this claim to profits, stating that they would prosecute it in separate proceedings. The decree-holder then sought to execute the a...
Syed Ismail Sahib Alias Syed Tahsildar Sahib and anr. Vs. Ethikasha Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad897; (1941)2MLJ541
Burn, J.1. This is an application to revise the order passed by the learned District Judge of Madura in O. P. No. 60 of 1938. That original petition was filed under Section 10 of the Mussalman Wakf Act, XLII of 1923, desiring the lower Court to punish the respondents by way of fine for failure to discharge their duties under the Wakf Act in connection with a darga called Hazarat Mohaiat Shaw Darga at Anuppanady village, near Madura. The respondents denied that any such wakf existed, and pleaded that it was only a Criminal Court that could impose the fine indicated under Section 10 of the Act. The learned District Judge thought that it was the District Court that had the jurisdiction to impose the fine, but held that since the wakf itself was denied, it was not competent for him to hold an enquiry into that matter.2. With regard to the first point, I am of opinion that the learned District Judge has not come to the correct conclusion. He relied upon the decisions in Nasrullah v. Wajid A...
Kayambu Pillai (Died) and anr. Vs. the Court of Wards by the Collector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad170; (1941)2MLJ873
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. This is an application to excuse the delay in presenting a petition for review against the orders passed by Mr. Justice Venkatasubba Rao and myself in A.S. No. 343 of 1931 on the 4th March, 1938, I have not, up till now, decided to issue any notice in regard to the petition for review and nothing in this order shall be taken to refer to the application for review which I shall consider separately.2. Since the existence of sufficient cause is a condition precedent without which the discretion given to a Court under this section cannot be exercised, the question whether the delay should be excused depends for its answer on the fact whether the petitioner has succeeded in making out the same. According to the well-known decision in Krishna v. Chathappan I.L.R.(1889) Mad. 269 cited by learned Counsel for the appellant, the words 'sufficient cause' have to be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice particularly when 'no negligence, nor inaction nor w...
Nainamalai Goundan and ors. Vs. Ramaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad20
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Sub-divisional Magistrate had ample power under Clause (1) of Section 144, Criminal P.C., to pass the order he did. The Sub-divisional Magistrate is responsible for preserving law and order within his jurisdiction and if on the material available to him he thinks that an order under Section 144, Criminal P.C., is necessary, it is his duty to pass such an order. Whether the material is gathered by himself or by the Sub-Magistrate is irrelevant. The petition is dismissed....
Manal Krishna Nayak and Sons, by Partners, M. Venkataraya Nayak and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad627; (1942)2MLJ348
Somayya, J.1. The South Indian Railway Company filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,243-7-6 as freight due to it and which is alleged to have been the' undercharge in respect of some consignments by the appellant-defendant from Mangalore to Bombay. Three consignments of gold were booked on 16th September, 1933, 23rd September, 1933 and 9th October, 1933, from Mangalore to Bombay and the case of the railway company is that while these consignments were liable to be charged at specially high rates, by some mistake low freight charges had been collected and that therefore the company is entitled to recover the deficiency.2. Various defences were raised, but there is only one question which can legitimately be urged in second appeal and that is, whether the railway company has got the right of filing a suit after all the goods were delivered over to the consignees. The contracts in question which are the forwarding notes are Exs. A, B and C. ...
M.N.M. Chelliah Pillai Vs. Ramiah thevar Alias Ramalinga thevar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad77; (1941)2MLJ375
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The question in dispute before the Magistrate was whether a right existed in the counter-petitioners to take rain water from the field of the petitioner through the bund separating the petitioner's field from the counter-petitioners' field.2. The learned Magistrate purported to make an enquiry under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and passed an order under Section 146(1) ordering attachment by the Court because he was unable to decide whether such right existed or not. He clearly should have acted under Section 147, which deals with disputes with regard to easements : that section does not make any provision for action to be taken in case the Magistrate is unable to decide between the parties. If it appears to the Magistrate that such a right exists, he may issue an order prohibiting interference with the exercise of the rights; on the other hand, if it appears to the Magistrate that such right does not exist, he may make an order prohibiting any exercise of the ...
In Re: Palayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad825; (1941)2MLJ401
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was an accused in C.C. No. 926 of 1941 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore. Upon a transfer of the Magistrate, the petitioner invoked the provisions of proviso (a) to Section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code and asked the Magistrate to recall the prosecution witnesses for fresh examination. The learned Counsel for the petitioner found, after cross-examining certain prosecution witnesses, that they were saying more than they had before, and he thought that it was not in the interests of his client to examine any more prosecution witnesses. He therefore asked the Magistrate not to examine the remaining witnesses. The Magistrate insisted and said:It is not open to the accused to say after some of the witnesses were examined, that the other witnesses need not be examined. Even if he does not want the other witnesses to be examined the Court can in the interests of proper appreciation of evidence and in the interests of justice examine ...
Sepulchre Brothers, Proprietors, the Belgium East India Trading and En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad13; (1941)2MLJ481
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The only question argued in this civil revision petition relates to the jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the suit. The issue has been found for the plaintiff and the defendant has preferred this revision petition.2. The suit was for damages for breach of contract for delivery of certain perforated steel Sheets according to specification to the plaintiff who is a merchant trading at Bezwada. The defendants who are carrying on business at Bombay are the representatives of a Belgian firm of steel manufacturers. The plaintiff averred that the defendants broke the contract by failing to deliver the goods and they sued in the District Munsif's Court at Bezwada alleging that their cause of action arose in part at Bezwada. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no part of the cause of action arose at Bezwada. The issue was tried by consent of parties as a preliminary issue and the letters by means of whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »