Chennai Court November 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.
Koorapati Seshavatharam Vs. Thalasila Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad274; (1943)1MLJ34
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question connected with Section 24 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The appellant here was the judgment-debtor in a decree on a mortgage under which he was required to pay Rs. 1,300 and odd. The decree-holder is the second respondent. In execution of that decree the properties of the appellant were sold on 29th November, 1937, and realised Rs. 1,900 and odd. On 17th March, 1938, the decree-holder drew out of Court from the sale proceeds an amount necessary to satisfy his decree. A small sum was also drawn, by an attaching decree-holder and the balance remained in Court. On 25th February, 1939, on an application under Section 23 the sale was set aside, apparently without objection on the ground of the decree having been fully satisfied before Act IV of 1938 came into force. We are informed that the decree has since been scaled down under Section 19 so as to make the judgment-debtor liable only for Rs. 548-7-7 with interest at six per cent. from 1st October,...
Rama Kamath Vs. C.L. Lobo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad265; (1943)1MLJ22a
Byers, J.1. The question of law raised in this revision petition is whether the guardian of a lunatic's property appointed under Section 67 of the Lunacy Act is competent to maintain a suit after the lunatic's death for the recovery of arreats of rent which accrued subsequent to her death on 19th November, 1939. The learned District Munsiff who decreed the suit in favour of the guardian, there being no dispute about the truth of the claim against the defendant, held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit by virtue of an order passed by the learned District Judge granting him permission to file suits and take out execution proceedings against the tenants of the estate. The learned advocate for the plaintiff-receiver rests his case in this Court on this order of the learned District Judge and he contends that quite apart from whether it is correct or not, it has not been challenged at any time and therefore it was not open to the defendant to contest it after the time for a...
Yaddanapudi Pullayya Vs. Yaddanapudi Venkatasubbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad260(2); (1943)1MLJ83
Horwill, J.1. The appellant was adjudged insolvent; but his adjudication was annulled on the 10th September, 1935. By the same order the property of the appellant was directed to continue to vest in the Official Receiver for a period of one year. Within that year, on the 29th February, 1936, a creditor filed E. P. No. 185 of 1936 without impleading the Official Receiver and took certain preliminary steps. On the 26th September, 1936, after the period for which the property was ordered to continue to vest in the Official Receiver had expired, the Official Receiver sent a letter to the Court asking it to stay its hand as he intended applying to the Insolvency Court for an order directing the property to continue to vest in him for some longer period. He made such an application to the Insolvency Court; but it was dismissed on the ground that the execution petition was pending and that it would be unfair to order the property to continue to vest with retrospective effect. So on the 5th Oc...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. the Bar Council, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad137; [1943]11ITR1(Mad)
ORDER(The order of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Bar Council states that the Council will utilize its income from investments solely for legal education and for expenses, including establishment charges, in connection therewith. In future separate accounts will be maintained for this purpose. In past years the Council have been treating the investments and income therefrom as applicable to legal education, investments. This makes it perfectly clear that the income of the Council received from investments is not taxable. As we have pointed out in our order dated the 2nd November 1942 the income form enrolment and examination fees is taxable. The Commissioner of Income-tax accepts the statement of the learned Advocate-General.In these circumstances the assessment for the years in question should be made on this basis. The questions referred will be answered in the sense indicated in our two orders.There will be no o...
In Re: Kuruba Chinna Hanumakka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad396; (1943)1MLJ51
King, J.1. This is an appeal from jail by one Chinna Hanumakka who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary of the murder of her husband and sentenced to transportation for life. Mr. Basi Reddi has very kindly consented to act as amicus curia and we are grateful to him for his presentation of the case.2. The prosecution case was that the appellant murdered her husband Thippanna on the night of the 29th of January last by poisoning him, the method of poisoning being by putting aconite powder into his evening meal. There can be no doubt, as found by the learned Sessions Judge, that this powder was introduced into the deceased's food on that occasion. Although the appellant denied everything in evidence against her at the trial, the evidence shows conclusively that she introduced the poison into her husband's food. She made a statement to that effect not only to several of the witnesses on the same night, but also in a formal statement under Section 164 of the Criminal ...
M.S. Venkita Rama Iyer Vs. Ulattil Pachu's son Kunhi Kandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad313; (1943)1MLJ151
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question to decide in this revision is one of limitation. The suit out of which this revision arises was brought on the basis of a promissory note executed on the 25th July, 1937. The suit was instituted on the 3rd January, 1941 Apparently, therefore, it would be barred by time. But the petitioner relies on Section 27 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936, and contends that in calculating the period of limitation, the time during which the proceedings taken by him before the Debt Conciliation Board were pending as well as the time taken by him for obtaining the certified copies of the order of the Board should be excluded. He made an application to the Board on the 23rd July, 1940, that is, two days before his limitation for the civil suit expired. He asked for leave to withdraw the application on the 13th December, 1940. This was; ordered the next day. On the same date he applied for a copy of the order and the order for granting copies was made on the ...
In Re: L.N. Abdul Sathar Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad128; (1942)2MLJ790
ORDERByers, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted on his own plea of 'guilty' of an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, in respect of his failure to pay the tax due from him within the time allowed. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 with simple imprisonment for one month in default of payment and at the same time he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5 for every day of default with effect from 28th May, 1941, the date fixed by the Magistrate for the payment of the tax. The petitioner's contention is that the section confers no power on the Magistrate to impose a fine in anticipation of an offence being committed although he has jurisdiction to calculate the fine payable for a particular offence on the basis of a daily penalty. In support of this argument the petitioner's learned advocate relies on the decision in Haluman Sah v. Motihari Municipality : AIR1937Pat352 . In that case an accused was ordered to pay a fine of one...
In Re: Sevugaperumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad391(2); (1943)1MLJ129
Byers, J.1. The six appellants have been convicted of house-breaking by night and dacoity, punishable under Sections 457, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Ramnad at Devakottai. They filed a regular appeal on the 6th August, 1942, through their learned Counsel and in due course the records were called for from the lower Court. On the 17th August, the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Devakottai was destroyed by fire and it has been reported that the records of this case were destroyed in that fire. No copies of the records are available and since the provisions of Section 423 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory, Mr. Somasundaram suggests that the only course possible is to order a re-trial.. His contention is that it is obligatory for the Court to obtain and examine the record at the time of hearing and in support of his suggestion he relies on the decision in Queen-Empress v. Khim...
The Dalmia Cement Company, Limited Vs. A.S.G. Lourdusami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1942
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ303
Abdur Rahman, J. 1. These are two connected appeals. They arise out of a suit for damages for breach of a building contract stated to have been committed by the defendant company in refusing to get a cement factory, or in any case, certain material portions thereof (and described as Raw Meal silos, workshops and stores and Lepol Kiln) constructed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that in response to a written invitation to offer for rates and terms at or on which persons who were willing to undertake the construction of a factory as well as subsidiary buildings to be raised in connection with the defendant company's new cement works at Kalakudi, Lalgudi Taluk (contained in a notice published by the latter and now embodied in the contract. Ex. A) he submitted a tender on the 26th May, 1938, under his covering letter Ex. B along with a deposit of Rs. 1,000 that was required to be made with the tender. This was accepted by the defendant company on the 2nd June, 1938, and the rates g...
Minor Meenakshi and anr. Vs. Ayyamperumal Udayan Son of Marudappudayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1942
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ430
Horwill, J.1. The question which arises in this petition is whether the use of the word 'party' in Section 35-A, Civil Procedure Code, prevents the Court from penalising a next friend of the plaintiff.2. But for the use of the word ' party,' one could not but hold that Section 35-A applied to a next friend as well as to a plaintiff or a defendant, as has been held with regard to Section 35. The question is how far the use of the word 'party' may be taken as an indication that the Legislature had or had not the intention of making liable a person other than a plaintiff or a defendant. In Satyanarayana v. Anjareddi (1941) 1 M.L.J. 763 the question was whether a next friend could be made liable under Section 95 for the payment of conpensation. The learned Judges pointed out that a statute should be strictly construed; but went on to give reasons why they thought that the Legislature intended to confine the application of Section 95 to the plaintiff himself and not to include the next frie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »