Chennai Court October 1942 Judgments
Venkataswami Naicker and ors. Vs. P.V. Navaneethakrishna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad413; (1943)1MLJ207
Horwill, J.1. On 22nd August, 1921, one Thirumalaiswami Naicken leased the suit property to one Subba Naicken. The plaintiff's predecessor-in-title in execution of a decree against Thirumalaiswami, brought the property to sale and purchased it on 29th June, 1925. The sale was confirmed on 30th July, 1925. On 22nd October, 1925, the auction-purchaser applied for delivery; but the tenant naturally obstructed the delivery and upon notice being given to him he said that he was in possession under the lease Ex. D of 22nd August, 1921, that the lease had still two years or so to run, and that until the term of the lease expired he was entitled to remain in possession. The Court then ordered symbolical delivery; but the auction-purchaser endorsed on the petition that she did not press her application as she was content to wait until the lease expired. So the application was dismissed on 18th March, 1926. The plaintiff's predecessor-in-title took no steps to reduce the land to possession. On 7...
Tag this Judgment!The Madanapalli Lakshmikantha Nidhi Limited by Official Liquidator Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1942
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ561
Somayya, J.1. Madanapalli Lakshmikantha Nidhi, Limited, by its liquidator is the petitioner in this Court. The order of the lower Court sought to be revised is one dismissing an execution application in a small cause suit on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. The decree was passed on nth November, 1936, for a sum of Rs. 156-4-0 with further interest and costs. The first application, so far as I can gather, was S.E.P. No. 160 of 1937, which appears to have been struck off on 12th October, 1937. The execution application out of which the present revision arises was filed on the 18th October, 1940, more than three years from the date on thich the previous execution application was struck off. The ground upon which the decree-holder sought to save the present execution application was by reference to a petition filed by one of the judgment-debtors before the Debt Conciliation Board, a copy of which is exhibited as Ex. A. In that petition before the Debt Conciliation ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chokkalingam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad255; (1943)1MLJ20
ORDERByers, J.1. The facts necessary for the determination of the question in issue in these two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are these. On the 30th of June, 1942, under his delegated powers the Collector of Madura issued an order under Rule 81 (2) (b) of the Defence of India Rules controlling the price at which sugar might be sold in various parts of the district. On the 5th of July, 1942, the Cooperative Stores at Palani, of which the petitioners are office-bearers, were found selling sugar at twelve annas per viss, the regulated price under the Collector's order being eight and a half annas. They were accordingly prosecuted for contravening Rule 81 (2), an offence punishable under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules.2. The only ground urged in support of these petitions to quash the proceedings is that a contravention of the order framed under Rule 81 (2) is not made punishable by Rule 81 (4) as it then stood prior to its amendment on 18th July, 1942.3. The relevant portio...
Tag this Judgment!T. Sankara Menon and ors. Vs. T.V. Sundara Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad129; (1943)1MLJ9
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The questions in this appeal relate to the law of limitation. On the 7th December, 1936, the respondent obtained a mortgage-decree against the appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar. On the 19th March, 1937, the decree-holder applied for the sale of one of the several properties covered by the decree. This item was sold on the 6th September, 1937, and on the 4th March, 1938, the sale was confirmed and partial satisfaction entered up. On the 6th October, 1939, the decree-holder applied for delivery of possession of the property sold. The appellants asked the decree-holder to give them time and he consented to do so. Consequently on the 16th 'November, 1939, this application was dismissed. On the 30th September 1940, the decree-holder filed a second application for an order directing delivery of possession of the property which he had purchased, and on the 27th November, the parties reported to the Court, that possession had be...
Tag this Judgment!Mantravadi Subrahmanya Sastri and ors. Vs. Appana Krishnabrahmam and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad279; (1943)1MLJ61
Horwill, J.1. Two persons named Appana Krishnabrahmam and Appana Krishnamurthy conducted a partnership business, but the firm was not registered. They are the plaintiffs in the suit. The defendants are two persons who executed the promissory note (Ex. A) in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court, by considering matters extraneous to Ex. A, held that the suit was not maintainable because the firm was not registered. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge said that although that might be the case, the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend the plaint; for after the filing of the suit the firm had registered itself.2. I agree with Mr. Somasundaram for the appellants that the ground on which the learned Subordinate Judge remanded the suit was wrong; but it seems clear to me that the suit was maintainable in the original form in which it was filed. The promissory note was executed in the names of Appana Krishnabrahmam Garu and Krishnamurthi Garu. That means that the only persons who can sue on ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Raju Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad391(1); (1943)1MLJ153
ORDERByers, J.1. Although the petitioners in these two cases are different the point raised in revision by each of them is the same, so a common order for their disposal will suffice. The petitioners have each been convicted of exceeding local speed limits, in Coimbatore, punishable under Section 115 read with Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and have been sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 50 and Rs. .30 respectively with simple imprisonment in default of payment....'2. There is no dispute about the facts. Both the petitioners were detected exceeding the speed limit on different roads within the municipality and the only point taken in revision is that the imposition of the speed limits by the regional transport authority under Rule 412 of the rules framed under the Act had not been notified in the Official Gazette in accordance with Section 71 (2) of the Act. At the time of admitting these petitions, Mr. Jayarama Ayyar, the petitioners' learned advocate in each case, pointed out that...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Ananthakrishna Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad629; (1943)2MLJ19
Byers, J.1. This appeal is by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge of Madura of an offence punishable under Section 277-L (4) of the Indian Companies Act and of which he had been convicted by the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Usilampatti in C.C. No. 195 of 1941 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 with simple imprisonment for six months in default of payment.2. The facts which are undisputed were these. The respondent is a director and also the secretary of a banking company known as the Swarnavalli Bank, Limited, situated in Periakulam and according to its Articles of association a reserve fund had been created which amounted on the day of the alleged occurrence to Rs. 20,302 and odd. This sum related to profits earned prior to 1934 and it is common ground that since then no profits have been earned. Under the Indian Companies (Amendment) Act of 1936, the maintenance of a reserve fund became obligatory for all banking c...
Tag this Judgment!Pulavarthi Lakshmanaswami (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Srimat Tirumula Pedd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad292; (1943)1MLJ104
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These appeals raise questions of some general importance relating to the true scope of the pious obligation of a Hindu son to discharge his father's debts.2. One Viraraghavacharyulu and his brother Ramanujacharyulu were members of a joint Hindu family of which the former was the manager. Viraraghavacharyulu borrowed Rs. 2,000 from the appellant in both appeals on a promissory note, dated 18th December, 1929. The debt was renewed in 1932 by the execution of another note for Rs. 3,070-7-6 being the amount then due for principal and interest under the earlier note. A sum of Rs. 400 was paid on 23rd September, 1935 and the payment was endorsed on the note by both Viraraghavacharyulu and Rarrjanujacharyulu. Viraraghavacharyulu having died in 1936, the appellant sued his son and Ramanujacharyulu (O.S. No. 48 of 1938) for recovery of the balance due on the note. A.S. No. 412 of 1940 arises out of that suit. The connected appeal A.S. No. 383 of 1940 arises out of another...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Bahadur V. Ranganathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Mariappa Mudali and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad386; (1943)1MLJ102
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the appellants in the City Civil Court for the ejectment of the respondents from certain lands in the Mambalam area of Madras. The appellants are the trustees of the Sri Parthasarathiswami Temple in Triplicane. Before the year 1882, the then trustees had leased to one Ramaswami Mudali an area of some eleven acres. The lessee died in 1882, leaving four sons, and the trustees decided to grant to each of them a lease of a portion of the land. Accordingly the area was divided into four plots. A part of each plot was regarded as building land and the rest agricultural land. To each brother was allotted one plot and he was treated as a yearly tenant thereof. Their respective descendants have been similarly treated. The lessees and their descendants have erected substantial buildings on their respective portions. The buildings cover nearly half of the total area. The present lessees have frequently default...
Tag this Judgment!T.S.P.L.P. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Jagu H. Shah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad393; (1943)1MLJ252
ORDERBell, J.1. This is an application for review of an order of the Taxing Officer in respect of two sums which have been disallowed in taxing a bill of costs of the defendant. The first sum of Rs. 895 was claimed as fee for an advocate instructed to examine or take part in the examination of certain witnesses on commission at Calcutta. The learned Taxing Officer took the view that such a fee was not provided for in the rules and could not be allowed, in effect saying that according to the rules an advocate who was employed in a case only receives one brief fee in spite of the fact that he might, as in this case, have to go elsewhere to take part in the examination of witnesses on commission or to perform any other duty in connection with the case on the special instructions of his client. Mr. Gopalaratnam has acted as an amicus curiae and has pointed out very clearly and concisely that on a reading of the rules, not only of those to which the Taxing Officer's attention was drawn, suc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »