Chennai Court October 1942 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.
Bollapragada Sarveswararao and anr. Vs. Nagumalli Venkata Subbayya Car ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad344; (1943)1MLJ231
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants were the defendants in a suit based on a settled account. The dealings between the parties began in 1931, but it is quite clear that the balance due as on the 1st October, 1932, was all wiped off by subsequent payments and that the debt remaining at the time of the settlement on the 17th June, 1936, included no portion of that original debt so as to bring the transaction under Section 8 of the Madras Act IV of 1938. The settlement of June, 1936, was accompanied by an agreement which is Ex. N. That states that the amount due for principal and interest was Rs. 8,050; the creditor had agreed to give up Rs. 1,400 and the debtor agreed to pay Rs. 6,650 with interest at Re. 0-12-6 per cent. per mensem. It is also provided that this amount shall be repaid in full by the 1st April, 1937, and in default the debtors agreed that the amount of Rs. 1,400 provisionally given up shall be paid by them with interest, that is to say, they agreed in that event to pay the fu...
P.M. Mohammad Usman Co., Through Its Managing Partner B.P. Usman Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad366; (1943)1MLJ87
Bell, J.1. The petition must succeed to this extent. The petitioner is the decree-holder. He succeeded in obtaining an order under Order 38, Civil Procedure Code, for the arrest of the judgment-debtor before judgment. The defendant found surety under Order 38, Rule 2. The surety, after decree, applied for his discharge under Order 38, Rule 3. The conditions were complied with and the surety was discharged. Then, the Court should have called upon the defendant to find further security. This was not done. Consequently Rule 4 does not apply. The Court appears to have thought that the decree having been passed, Order 38 was no longer applicable, but that something in the nature of proceedings under Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure were.2. In my opinion, this view is erroneous : The arrest was made under Order 38, and proceedings must continue under that order. The Court must therefore call upon the defendant to find fresh security under Rule 3 and if he fails to comply with that o...
R. Narayana Reddiar Vs. Venkatesa Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad395; (1943)1MLJ135
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 30th November, 1924, the first defendant executed a mortgage of immovable properties in favour of the plaintiff's father. On the 26th November, 1927, the first defendant created a second mortgage over some of the properties covered by the first mortgage. The second mortgage was in favour of one Krishnaswami Naicker, whose legal representatives are defendants 4 to 6. On the 29th September, 1928, the mortgagor was adjudicated an insolvent. Four of the mortgaged properties had been sold before the adjudication. On the 17th February, 1931, the Official Receiver sold the rest of the properties, subject, of course, to the mortgages which had been created. The properties were purchased by Ramaswami Reddiar, the elder brother of the second defendant. Ramaswami Reddiar is now dead and is represented by the second defendant. On the 15th November, 1936, the second defendant paid Rs. 50 towards the interest due on the mortgage created in favour of the plain...
St. Mr. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Chandramouliswara Ayyar, Minor by Matern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad637; (1943)2MLJ45
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff-decree-holder is the appellant. His petition to execute the decree obtained for recovery of money due on a hypothecation deed was dismissed by the lower appellate Court upholding the objection of the judgment-debtor that the decree-holder could not execute for the entire amount decreed inasmuch as he has become the purchaser of the one of the items of the hypotheca in a sale held in execution of the decree on a subsequent mortgage in which he has purchased the property subject to the mortgage sued on. The first Court disallowed the objection of the judgment-debtor and directed execution to proceed as per the terms of the decree. But the lower appellate Court found that he could not execute the decree and instead of ascertaining for how much he could execute, dismissed the petition. Hence the appeal.2. The mortgage deed on which the suit Was filed was executed on the 18th February, 1929, to the appellant by the father of the first defendant for himse...
The Calicut Bank Limited (In liquidation) by Official Liquidators Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Mad84; (1943)2MLJ448
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point for consideration in these two appeals is whether the decree-holder should obtain the sanction of the. Court which passed orders winding up the Calicut Bank (appellant) under Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, for the purpose of continuing execution proceedings taken out against that Bank which is now under liquidation.2. Both these appeals arise out of execution proceedings started by the decree-holders, and in both the appellant Bank was added as a party on the ground that it had obtained a subsequent mortgage of the properties which were sought to be sold in execution of the 'hypothecation decrees obtained by the decree-holders, in the two suits out of which these appeals arise. The Bank was a party to the suits and to the proceedings in execution. It went into liquidation subsequent to the filing of the execution petitions. The contention now is that the execution proceedings cannot be continued without the sanction of the Court which ord...
Rao Sahib Srinivasa Mudaliar Vs. Ramudu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad262; (1943)1MLJ57
Happell, J.1. The petitioner was the decree-holder in Small Cause Suit No. 2 of 1940 in the Vellore Sub-Court and the first respondent was the decree holder in Small Cause Suit No. 79 of 1940 in the same Court. The respondent had his decree transferred for execution to the original side of the Subordinate Judge's Court as execution involved the sale of immovable property. The property was sold, and the assets were received on the 7th of November, 1940 and the 21st of November, 1940. The petitioner meanwhile had his decree transferred for execution to the District Munsiff's Court, Vellore, but sometime before the 5th of November, 1940, it was re-transferred to the Sub-Court and on 5th of November, 1940, an application was made for execution by the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor in the two suits, Small Cause Suit No. 2 of 1940 and Small Cause Suit No. 79 of 1940 was the same. On 19th November, 1940, the petitioner applied to the Subordinate Judge for rateable distribu...
Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1942
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ171
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee carried on a money-lending business in Rangoon in partnership with the S. P. K. A. firm. The firm composed of the assessee and the S. P. K. A. firm was known as the S. P. K. A. A. M. firm. On the 14th March, 1929, the S. P. K. A. A. M. firm and another Chettiar firm carrying on business in Rangoon, styled the O. N. R. M. M. firm, entered into a lease of a building in Mogul Street, Rangoon, at a rent of Rs. 3,000 per month. Chettiars carrying on business in Rangoon all had their offices in Mogul Street. The lessees did not require the whole of the premises for their respective businesses and their intention was to sub-let parts of the building to other Chettiars. This they did, but the sub-lessees did not pay in full what was due from them by way of rent. The lessees themselves disputed the validity of the lease with their landlord and the case was carried to the Privy Council. The Privy Council held that the lease was valid and therefore t...
Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad389; [1943]11ITR38(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).The assessee carried on a money-lending business in Rangoon in partnership with the S.P.K.A. firm. The firm composed of the assessee and the S.P.K.A. firm was known as the S.P.K.A.A.M. firm. On the March 14, 1929, the S.P.K.A.A.M. firm and another Chettiar firm carrying on business in Rangoon, styled the O.N.R.M.M. firm, entered into a lease of a building in Mogul Street, Rangoon, at a rent of Rs. 3,000 per month. Chettiars carrying on business in Rangoon all had their offices in Mogul Street. The lessees did not require the whole of the premises for their respective business and their intention was to sub-let parts of the building to other Chettiars. This they did, but the sub-lessees did not pay in full what was due from them by way of rent. The lessees themselves disputed the validity of the lease with their landlord and the case was carried to the Privy Council. The Privy Council held that the lease was valid...
Kunhiyoor Manakkal Tavazhi Karnavan and Manager Neelakandhan Nambudrip ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad544; (1943)1MLJ325
Horwill, J. 1. The landlord (the appellant) brought a suit to evict his tenant (the respondent) because, in the words of Section 20 (3) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, the period of the kanom had expired and no renewal had been obtained. The tenant thereupon exercised the right given to him under Section 23 (b) to file an application under Section 22 to have a renewal of the kanom. The period of the kanom had expired on the 25th April, 1926; but neither had the landlord taken action to evict the tenant nor had the tenant applied for renewal until the suit was filed in 1938. The District Munsiff before whom the suit and the renewal application were filed held that as a further period or 12 years had expired since the expiry of the original kanom in 1926, two renewal fees were necessary. He therefore dismissed the application of the tenant on the ground that the sum to be deposited by him, viz., the value of two renewals, had not been deposited. The tenant went in appeal to the Subordinate J...
Pachayakkal and anr. Vs. Shanmughavelayudhasami Gopanna Mannadiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad146; (1942)2MLJ785
Happell, J.1. The petitioners in this group of civil revision petitions, which all relate to the same question of court-fee, were the legal representatives of the first defendant in three suits for redemption brought by the respondents in the Court of the District Munsiff of Coimbatore. The contentions of the respondents as plaintiffs in these suits were substantially that Act IV of 1938 applied and that they were entitled to possession without paying anything more. The contentions were accepted and a decree was passed directing the defendants to deliver possession of the properties to the respondents. Against this decree the petitioners filed appeals- in the Court of the District Judge of Coimbatore. In their memoranda of grounds of appeal the contention was raised in one form or another that the respondents were not entitled to redemption; but it was also pleaded that Act IV of 1938 did not apply, that the principal amount had not been fully discharged, and that in any case there wer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »