Chennai Court February 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.
T. Radhakrishnan Chettiar Vs. the Official Liquidator, Madras Peoples' ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad73; (1943)1MLJ142
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question with regard to the meaning of Section 109 (1) (e) of the Indian Companies Act. On the 5th February, 1938, the appellant placed with the Madras Peoples' Bank, Limited, a sum of Rs. 3,000 on fixed deposit for the period of one year. The Bank did not repay the money when it fell due and it was agreed that it should be redeposited, but that the amount should be split up into four sums of Rs. 500 each and one of Rs. 1,000, repayable on the 10th April, 25th April, 10th May, 25th May and 5th June, 1939, respectively. Being in financial difficulties the Bank was not able to repay any of these sums on the due date, but offered to indorse five promissory notes to the appellant as security for its indebtedness to him. The appellant agreed to this course and the terms of the arrangement were embodied in a document which was duly executed, but it was not registered with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies.2. On the 2nd November, 193...
A. Rajagopala Aiyar and ors. Vs. S. Ramachandra Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad628; (1942)2MLJ406
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on. the original side of this Court by the respondent for the redemption of a mortgage. The case presents some unusual features and it is necessary in order to appreciate the questions involved in the appeal to state in detail the history of the case. The respondent's father, S. Subramania Aiyar, was indebted to the appellants' father, Ayyaswami Aiyar, on two promissory notes. Ayyaswami Aiyar, died on the 14th September, 1919 and Subramania Aiyar on the 15th October, 1919. In 1920 the appellants instituted a suit against the widow of Subramania Aiyar and D. Venkatarama Aiyar and M. Gopala Aiyar, who had been nominated by him as the executrix and the executors of his will. On the 4th March, 1921, a decree was passed in favour of the appellants for Rs. 2,939-11-0. In execution of that decree the appellants attached the property now in suit and bought it at the sale held in pursuance of an order of the Court passed i...
Sait Kasturi Chand and anr. Vs. Addagalla Vaikuntam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad426; (1942)1MLJ378
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The complainant in this case gave a complaint under Sections 406 and 409, I.P.C. to the Joint Magistrate of Narsapur to the effect that he had pledged jewels with certain Marwari bankers (the petitioners in this Court) and that when he redeemed the jewels they were found to weigh 35 tolas as against 47 tolas entrusted. The Joint Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, came to the conclusion that the present petitioners were not bankers and that the offence disclosed by the complaint was one under Section 406, I.P.C., which is triable by a Second Class Magistrate and not one punishable under S- 409, I.P.C., which' is triable only by a First Class Magistrate. He therefore exercised his powers tinder Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and transferred the case to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Narsapur for disposal. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate, instead of proceeding with the case ...
Pottiswami, Alleged Partner of Pottiswami and Brothers Vs. Salt Sulaim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad501; (1942)1MLJ377
King, J.1. The petitioner here is alleged by the respondent to be a partner in the firm of Pottiswami and Brothers against whom the respondent has a decree granted by the Court of Small Causes at Khurai. The decree has been transferred for execution to the Subordinate Judge's Court of Bezwada, which Court has held that it has jurisdiction to decide the question of petitioner's liability under Order 21, Rule 50 (2). Petitioner questions the correctness of that decision.2. If Rule 50 (2) alone be referred to, the decision appears to be obviously wrong. The sub-rule says that the decree-holder must apply to the Court which passed the decree. This must always be distinguishable in the nature of things from the Court to which the decree has been sent for execution and is so distinguished in fact in both Section 42 and in Order 21, Rule 10.3. The scope of Order 21, appears to be that where Rule 10 applies the' word 'Court' alone is used. Where as in Rule 16, Rule 26 'or Rule 50 it is intende...
K.M.N.S.P. Nachiappa Chettiar (Dead) and ors. Vs. A.K.A. Ramachandra R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad527; (1942)1MLJ510
Patanjali Sastri, J.[After dealing with Appeals Nos. 23 and 24 of 1988, His Lordship proceeded :]1. It remains only to deal with Appeal No. 295 of 1939 and C.R.P. No. 1857 of 1939, which, as stated already, have been preferred by defendants 5 to 8. These defendants are admittedly not agriculturists within the meaning of the Madras Act IV of 1938, and cannot therefore, put forward any claim under that Act to have the mortgage debt scaled down. But these defendants contend that if the debt is scaled down at the instance of the mortgagor who is an agriculturist and claims the benefits of the Act, the properties purchased by these defendants subject to the suit mortgage could be proceeded against only for the scaled down amount and no more, under the general law relating to mortgages. This contention is supported by the decision reported in Arunachalam v. Seetharam (1941) 1 M.L.J. 561 : I.L.R. (1941) Mad. 930 to which one of us was a party. The same principle was also applied in Marina Amm...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.D. Naidu, Industrial Educational Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad625; (1942)2MLJ230
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 24th January, 1938, one G.D. Naidu, a gentleman largely interested in motor engineering and transport companies in the Coimbatore District, created the G. D. Naidu, Industrial Educational Trust and purported to endow it with the shares held by him in six transport companies of which he had the control and immovable property worth Rs. 1,10,000. Mr. Naidu constituted himself the managing trustee of the trust and gave himself full power to deal with its assets. This reference arises out of a claim made under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act by Mr. Naidu, as the managing trustee, for a refund of the tax paid in respect of dividends declared on the shares held in these transport companies. The Income-tax authorities refused to allow a refund. Their reason was that the shares were not held under trust wholly for charitable purposes within the meaning of the section. The managing trustee having asked the Commissioner of Income-tax to state ...
M.S. Palaniappa Mudaliar (as Guardian of His Minor Daughter Meenakshi) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad470; (1942)1MLJ425
Mockott, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is from an order of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore made in an application under Section 184 of the Indian Companies Act to settle the list of contributories. He was concerned with the 18th contributory. He has, by his order, placed the father of the 18th contributory on the list and the latter appeals.2. We have before us very little material : but it is evident that the following essential facts were not in dispute. An application was made by M.S. Palaniappa Mudaliar as guardias of his minor daughter Meenakshi for shares and the company issued shares to and registered shares in the name of Meenakshi, describing her as a minor. This transaction was void on the face of it. An application for shares cannot be a necessity for a minor; but the bank evidently regarded it as a valid transaction and the Official Liquidator claimed against the minor for contribution when the company went into liquidation. The minor through her father Pala...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›