Chennai Court September 1941 Judgments
Dosapati Ramayya Vs. Pattam Anjayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad146; (1941)2MLJ848
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred by the defendant against a decree in a small cause suit based on a promissory note. Two questions were raised in revision, one. relating to the scaling down of the decree under Madras Act IV of 1938 and the other relating to limitation. On the first point, it seems to us clear that the two earlier payments amounting to Rs. 125 must be treated as unappropriated payments available in reduction of principal as on 1st October, 1937, so that the decree should have been one for Rs. 75 with interest at 6 1/4 per cent, from 1st October, 1937, credit being given as on 15th September, 1938, to the payment of Rs. 2.2. Turning to the more difficult question relating to limitation, it is common ground that the suit filed on 11th November, 1939, would have been barred by limitation unless limitation was saved by the endorsement of Rs. 2 on 15th September, 1938. The promissory note was for a sum of Rs. 271-8-6 and the previously endorsed payme...
Tag this Judgment!Thangathammal Vs. Veerama Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad260; (1941)2MLJ1024
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some difficulty. The question is whether the appellant is entitled to a rateable distribution by virtue of her being the holder of a decree in O.S. No. 334 of 1934 on the file of the District Munsif of Thuraiyur against one Ramaswami Pillai from and out of the sale proceeds of property realised in execution of a decree in S.C.S. No. 340 of 1936 on the file of the said Court. The said Ramaswami Pillai was the brother of the appellant. The decree in O.S. No. 334 of 1934 was obtained by the appellant against the said Ramaswami Pillai who died subsequent to the decree, and the appellant became his heir and representative. The decree in S.C.S. No. 340 of 1936 was obtained by the respondent against the appellant as the heir and representative of the said Ramaswami Pillai in respect of a debt due by him. The respondent in execution of his decree attached the immovable property belonging to Ramaswami Pillai. The property was sold and the...
Tag this Judgment!Paramanand Doss Chota Doss and Sons, a Firm of Merchants and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad232; (1941)2MLJ923
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two appeals which arise out of the same judgment raise an important question of law and questions of fact. The question of law is whether a manager of an undivided Hindu family in creating for a family purpose a mortgage of immovable property in Madras may confer on the mortgagee a power of sale which can be exercised without recourse to the Court. The appeals have been heard together and can be dealt with conveniently in one judgment.2. The suit was filed on the Original Side of this Court by respondents 1 to 7, all of whom are minors. The first and second respondents are the sons of the first defendant in the suit. The third respondent is the son of Mulji Lala, the brother of the first and second defendants. Mulji Lala died before the institution of the suit. Respondents 4 to 7 are the sons of the second defendant. The first and second defendants and Mulji Lala constituted an undivided Hindu family and the family remained joint after Mulji Lala...
Tag this Judgment!Yeddula Kothapalle Muthyalu Vs. Bolla Chinnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad149; (1941)2MLJ1010
Wadsworth, J.1. The question in this civil revision petition is whether the petitioner, who gave a surety bond undertaking to satisfy any decree which might be passed against respondents 2 and 3, can be deemed to be a judgment-debtor entitled to scale down the decree which was ultimately passed, by the procedure laid down in Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938.2. The matter arises out of a suit brought by the first respondent against respondents 2 and 3 on two promissory notes, one dated 31st July, 1929 and the other dated 27th June, 1931. A decree was passed ex parte and subsequently there was an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The defendants were required to give security as a condition precedent to the setting aside of the decree and the present petitioner gave a bond on 4th July, 1934 in which he undertook to satisfy any decree which might be passed against the respondents 2 and 3. The ex parte decree was therefore set aside and the suit reopened and on 10th September...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Firm of N.V. Abdulla Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad177; (1942)1MLJ18
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessees constitute a firm trading in timber under the style of N. V. Mammaly and Sons. Before the year 1939-40 the firm had been registered under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, and on the 10th October, 1939 an application for a renewal of the registration was made. Three weeks later N. V. Abdulla Sahib, the senior partner, died and his death resulted in the reconstitution of the firm. His widow was taken in as a partner and his three sons and three daughters, all of whom are minors, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In the application for the registration of the new firm under Section 26-A the shares of the partners were stated to be N. V. Ummarkutty, six annas; N. V. Kayumma, two annas; N. V. Mariyumma, two annas; and K. Bibi (the widow of N. V. Abdulla Sahib) six annas. K. Bibi had not in fact a six annas share in the partnership. Her share was two annas, the remaining four annas being intended for the benefit of the minors...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. N. V. Abdulla Sahib,.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR7(Mad)
LEACH C. J. - The assessee constitute a firm trading in timber under the style of N. V. Mammaly & Sons. Before the year 1939-40 the firm had been registered under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, and on the 10th October 1939, and application for a renewal of the registration was made. Three weeks later N. V. Abdulla Sahib, the senior partner, died and his death resulted in the reconstitutions of the firm. His widow was taken in as a partner and his three sons and three daughters, all of whom are minors, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In the application for the registration of the new firm under Section 26-A the shares of the partners were stated to be :- N. V. Ummerkutty, six annas : N. V. Kayumma, two annas; N. V. Mariumma, two annas and K. Bibi (the widow of N. V. Abdulla Sahib) six annas. K. Bibi had not in fact a six annas share in the partnership. Her share was two minors, the remaining four annas being intended for the benefit of the minors, who were admitte...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.K. Narayanan Nambiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad223; (1941)2MLJ787
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 409, Penal Code, of committing criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating a sum Rs. 118-15-0 entrusted to him in his capacity as Head Clerk, District Court, North Malabar; and the offence is said to have been committed between 2nd December 1940 and the 17th of that month. His appeal was dismissed, the conviction and sentence being affirmed. The principal question which arises in this petition is whether the learned Magistrate, purporting to act under Section 540, Criminal P.C., exercised his discretion improperly in admitting the evidence of a person who was examined as C.W. 1. The prosecution let in evidence through P.Ws. 8 and 9 that on 14th December 1940, the petitioner took a sum of Rs. 2 out of the bag in which he kept his money as Head Clerk and gave it to P.W. 9 to purchase seven stamp papers, which were subsequently handed over to P.W. 8. Formal evidence was given to this effect and there was not much c...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Baron Von Dincklage
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad182; (1941)2MLJ748
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code of committing criminal breach of trust with respect to a sum of Rs. 7,643, the sale proceeds of certain enamels sold to one Dwarakadoss Narayanadoss; and he has been sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts of the case are fairly simple. The appellant, a German Director of a German Company, on the eve of the declaration of War between Britain and Germany, attempted to realise as much money as he could; and so asked his clerk to try to find a purchaser for the enamels that he had in stock. He was brought into touch with Dwarakadoss Narayanadoss, who agreed to pay Rs. 7,643 for the enamels. He came with a cheque for that amount on the morning of the 2nd of September 1939, the day before the war was declared; but the accused refused to take a cheque and said that he must be paid in cash. The cash was paid in the afternoon of the 2nd...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.V. Srinivasalu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ1036
ORDERHorwill, J.1. A preliminary order under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, was issued by the Joint Magistrate of Tindivanam calling upon the petitioner and eight others to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace for a period of twelve months, and ten instances were cited of acts which tended to show that it was necessary to bind them over. The Magistrate began the enquiry; and after one witness had been examined in chief, the police represented to the Court that even after the institution of the proceedings the petitioner and the others had committed a number of other misdeeds which also showed that it was necessary to bind them over. The police therefore asked the Court to pass a supplementary order under Section 112. The Joint Magistrate acceded to the request of the police and the question that arises in revision is whether that practice is illegal or objectionable.2. It would be unfortunate if a Court could not take judicial notice of what had taken p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Swaminatha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad290; (1941)2MLJ1045
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Kumbakonam of an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Sales Tax Act in failing to submit a return as required by the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, and he has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50.2. The petitioner deals in hand-woven cloth on which, according to Section 5 of the Act, he is exempted from the taxation laid down in Section 3. Under the rules in force at the time when the petitioner is said to have committed this offence, it was however necessary for him to get a licence for selling even hand-woven articles. As he was already in possession of a licence under the Sale of Cloth Act of 1937, all that was necessary for him to do was to take that licence to the assessing authority and get an endorsement on it. He failed to do so. Since that date the Government have ordered that it is not necessary for persons selling only hand-woven material to obtain a licence.3. It is con...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »