Chennai Court September 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 Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanams Committee Represented by Its Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad256; (1941)2MLJ1093
Somayya, J.1. The respondent, the Municipal Council of Tirupati, assessed the electric power house owned by the appellant. This building is not ordinarily let, and hence the respondent proceeded to fix the annual value under the proviso to Section 82, Clause (2) of the District Municipalities Act. Under this proviso, the annual value of the premises shall be deemed to be six per cent. of the total of the estimated value of the land and the estimated present cost of erecting the building less a deduction for depreciation. In fixing the 'estimated present cost of erecting the building' the respondent took the cost of constructing the compound walls as well. This is objected by the appellant on the ground that the compound walls are not included in the word 'building' in Section 82 of the Act and that 'a compound wall' is not a building by itself as defined in Section 3, Clause (3) of the Act.2. Section 82 runs thus:(1) Every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adj...
Thottilakath Puthiapurayil Alias Kurikkalavita Kunhabdulla Vs. Thottil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad320; (1942)1MLJ217
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The view of the Collector that orders cannot be passed on a petition under Section 20 (1) of the Madras Act XVII of 1939 until the suit for partition under Chapter III of the Act has been finally disposed of, is opposed to Section 20, Clause (3), which requires proceedings under Chapter III to be stayed during the pendency of the petition under Section 20 (1) and his order cannot for that reason be sustained. It is accordingly set aside and the petition under Section 20 (1) is remanded to him for disposal according to law. Costs upto date will abide and follow the result....
In Re: Sri V.M. Sundaresa Aiyar, Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ663
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader practising at Vellore. He has been charged with professional misconduct. He filed in Court three certificates to the effect that he had received from his client by way of fees Rs. 40, Rs. 60 and Rs. 20, respectively. He had not in fact received these fees and his certificates were false. The charge against him is in connection with the filing of these certificates.2. There is no dispute with regard to the facts, but the respondent pleads that there are extenuating circumstances. He had acted for this client for many years and he had kept a running account in respect of the work done for him. He had always been paid his fees and he had no reason to suppose that these sums would not be paid. It is certainly a very serious matter for a pleader or an advocate to file a false certificate with regard to fees. This Court had to draw attention to the seriousness of such conduct in a circular issued on the 13th April, 1939. In that c...
Manyam Krishna Rao Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad254; (1941)2MLJ698
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act against the order of the District Judge reversing the decision of the Insolvency Court which declined to interfere under Section 63 of the Provincial Insolvency Act with a sale held by the Official Receiver. The-petitioner here was the purchaser from the Official Receiver of the equity of redemption of certain properties of the. insolvent which were bound by three mortgages, one of which had been the subject of a decree for sale. The other two had not been sued on. The insolvency sale was held on the 27th September, 1938 and was subject to these mortgages. On the 14th September, 1938, the insolvent filed the petition in the Insolvency Court. According to an unofficial copy of the petition which has been placed before me, the insolvent impleaded therein a large number of creditors, but did not implead the Official Receiver and he asked under Sections 21 and 7 of Act IV of 1938 tha...
The Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Co., Ltd., in Liquidation Thro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad337; (1941)2MLJ908
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The amount in dispute was payable to the Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Co., Ltd., towards future instalments in respect of chits held by the first respondent, the prize winner, and it was deposited in a Chit Savings Bank account in the name of the first respondent in the Travancore National Bank Ltd., in accordance with Rule 18 (b) of the Chit Fund Rules. Rule 4 of the Rules of the Chit Savings Bank account provides that the amount deposited shall not be available for withdrawal for purposes other than for payment of chit instalments till the termination of the particular chit in respect of which the account is opened and under Rule 5 the chit fund subscriptions due every month are to be appropriated and adjusted from the Chit Savings Bank account as and when they fall due. Rule 6 provides that the Chit Savings Bank account is to be treated as an ordinary Savings Bank account only after the termination of the chit, and there was in effect an assignment to the ...
In Re: Sv.Rm.Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad390; (1942)1MLJ111
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. The question referred to me for decision is whether court-fee paid by the petitioner on the memorandum of the civil revision petition presented to this Court against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in E.A. No. 444 of 1940 is correct.2. The application out of which this civil revision petition arises was made to direct the first respondent to refund a sum,, of Rs. 987-3-11 being the amount which he received at a rateable distribution of the sale proceeds, of the property of the common judgment-debtor in excess of the amount which he was legitimately entitled to. The petitioner paid a court-fee of Rs. 5 on the memorandum of the petition, but the office brings to my notice that the value of the suit wherein the sale proceeds were realised in execution of the decree is above the value of Rs. 1,000 and therefore a court-fee of Rs. 10 ought to be paid.3. Mr. Ramabhadra Aiyar on behalf of the petitioner contends that the value of the ...
In Re: S, a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad905
Leach, C.J.1. The respondent 13 a pleader practising at Vellore. He has been charged with professional misconduct. He filed in Court three certificates to the effect that he had received from his client by way of fees Rs. 40, RS. 60 and Rs. 20 respectively.2. He had not in fact received these fees and his certificates were false. The charge against him is in connexion with the filing of these certificates.3. There is no dispute with regard to the facts, but the respondent pleads that there are extenuating circumstances. He had acted for this client for many years and he had kept a running account in respect of the work done for him. He had always been paid his fees and he had no reason to suppose that these sums would not be paid. It is certainly a very serious matter for a pleader or an advocate to file a false certificate with regard to fees. This Court had to draw attention to the seriousness of such conduct in a circular issued on 13th April J1939. In that circular the Court said t...
The Province of Madras, Represented by the District Collector Vs. Bodd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad913; (1941)2MLJ607
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents in the Court of the District Munsif of Vizianagaram for a declaration that the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and the Turnover and Assessment rules framed thereunder are ultra vires the Provincial Legislature, a permanent injunction restraining the Provincial Government from collecting any tax from the respondents on the sales by them of groundnut oil and groundnut cake and an order directing the refund of Rs. 163-11-0, the amount which the respondents alleged they had been unlawfully compelled to pay in respect, of sales of groundnut oil and groundnut cake during the month of October, 1939. The respondents are members of a joint Hindu trading family carrying on business at Vizianagaram. They purchase groundnuts in the shell, and having decorticated the nuts they proceed to extract the oil from the kernels for the purpose of sale. Out of the residue they make groundnut cake, which they also...
Thayyanayaki Ammal by Agent Viswalingam Chettiar Vs. Minor Sundarappa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad200; (1941)2MLJ913
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff from a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dismissing a suit brought to enforce a mortgage executed by one Rajagopala Kandiyar on 4th June, 1913. Plaintiff claims title to the mortgage under the will of her father Sabapathi Chetti who was the son of the mortgagee and died in December, 1934. The first defendant is the son of the mortgagor and the sixth defendant is the Official Receiver of Tanjore in whom the estate of the mortgagor has become vested on his adjudication as insolvent. The other defendants claim interest as purchasers in different items of properties comprised in the mortgage. The suit was filed in 1937 and certain part payments alleged to have been made from time to time and endorsed on the bond by the mortgagor were relied on as extending the period of limitation. The Court below held that some of these alleged payments and endorsements were not genuine and dismissed the suit as barred by li...
Tatavarthi Nagaportharow Vs. Pulipati Subbarow and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad360; (1942)1MLJ177
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application filed under S.. 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in the insolvency of one Mallayya by the 1st respondent who is a creditor of the said Mallayya. The relief sought is a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 149 of 1932 on the file of the district Munsif 's Court, Masulipatam, obtained by the appellant against the insolvent Mallayya and his sons, respondents 5 and 6 in this appeal, is a nullity in its entirety and does not bind the Official Receiver, Kistna who is the 2nd respondent here. It was alleged in the application that the said Mallayya was adjudicated insolvent on 20th January, 1932, that the appellant instituted the said suit subsequently without obtaining the leave of the Insolvent Court and obtained a decree against the insolvent personally and against the joint family property in the hands of his sons. The appellant stated in his affidavit that he was not aware of any insolvency when he filed the suit and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »