Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Vridhichand Sowcar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad527; (1943)1MLJ377
Horwill, J.1. The three appellants were three of the four accused in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Chingleput who were charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code with dacoity. The three appellants were found guilty by a unanimous verdict of the jury and were sentenced by the Sessions Judge to five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that the third accused entertained some animosity against P. W. 6, the complainant, and engaged a number of persons to break into his house to attack him and beat him, to do the same to his women, and then to help themselves to whatever property they could lay hands on. In accordance with that plan, the 3rd accused took the other accused and one or two more men in a car to a place near the house of P. W. 6. They watched P. W. 6's house for some time, and when they saw that he and his family had retired to rest, they entered the house. To some extent the plan miscarried, in that P. W. 6 and his womenfolk made so much noise th...
Avasarala Kamaraju Pantulu and anr. Vs. Balla Saramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad604; (1942)2MLJ104
King, J.1. This is an appeal by two would-be appellants in the Court of the learned District Judge of Bast Godavari, They attempted on the 21st of July, 1939 to obtain a favourable order from the learned District Judge under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for excusing a delay of 19 days in presenting their appeal. The learned District Judge refused to excuse that delay and dismissed the petition and as a natural consequence of that order the appeal was, rejected.2. The argument put forward before me is that the application made by the appellants before the District Judge was really unnecessary, that there was no delay to be excused at all, and that when they first presented their appeal on the 7th of July it was in Pact presented in time.3. The facts and dates are as follows: The decree of the first Court against which the appellants desired to appeal was passed. on the 2nd May, 1939. A few days later the Court rose for the summner vacation, and both it and the District Court re-assem...
Yalpi Virupakshappa Vs. Chowdireddi Veerabhadra Gowd and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad80; (1942)2MLJ442
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant obtained a money decree against the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the Court of the District Munsiff of Bellary. In execution of that decree he attached certain immovable properties. The 1st respondent applied for an order removing the attachment on the ground that the properties were his. His application was rejected and consequently he instituted a suit under the provisions of Order 21, rule 63 to establish his title. When the suit came on for hearing the 1st respondent realized that he could not succeed without a prayer for possession and he applied for leave to amend his plaint in this respect. The leave to amend was refused, but the District Munsiff intimated that he would be prepared to allow the 1st respondent to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under Order 23, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The 1st respondent, realising that he would be in a difficulty with regard to limitation, raised this question before t...
D. Anjaneya Sastri Vs. T.R. Rajagopala Chettiar, Trustee of Chinna Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad699; (1942)2MLJ187
Patanjali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent for recovery of a house in Kumbakonam. His case is that the house was dedicated to a charity known as Chinna Ramanuja Koodam and that as the trustee appointed under a scheme decree passed in 1931, he is entitled to recover it from the appellant who claims title to it under an auction-purchase in execution of a decree obtained against one Malayaperumal Chetty and his son. It was alleged that Malayaperumal held the property as the trustee of the charity prior to the appointment of the respondent and had no beneficial interest therein, and that therefore the appellant did not acquire a valid title under his purchase in Court auction. On the other hand, the appellant denied the alleged dedication of the property and claimed that in any event Malayaperumal and his sons having been in possession and enjoyment of it as beneficial owners they acquired by prescription an absolute title which passed to the appellant under...
Cherukuri Gangaraju Vs. Seemakurti Lakshminarayanamurti (Died) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad644; (1942)2MLJ202
Somaya, J.1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920 and the petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Court of West Godavari dated the 8th of March, 1939, passed by him in C.M.A. No. 139 of 1937. By that order the District Judge reversed the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ellore passed by him in I.A. No. 4 of 1937, in I.P. No. 62 of 1934.2. I.A. No. 4 of 1937, which has given rise to this revision petition was one filed under Section 50 of Act, V of 1920, for expunging the entry of the petitioner as a creditor in the insolvency. The petitioner was admitted as a creditor and a dividend was paid to him by the Official Receiver. Subsequently I.A. No. 4 of 1937 was filed for action under Section 50 of the Act. The application was resisted mainly on the ground that there were no other assets to be realised by the Official Receiver and no prospect of any further dividend, that the Insolvency Court has no power ev...
Bhamidipati Kameswara Rao Vs. the National Movietone Company, Ltd., Ki ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad659; (1942)2MLJ110
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for damages for infringement of copyright. The plaintiff claims to have written the dramatic work which has been converted according to him, by the defendants into a cinematograph film. He further complains that the defendants entered into a contract with the proprietor of a cinema in Rajahmundry to exhibit this film and that the film was duly exhibited in Rajahmundry in pursuance of that contract. A number of issues have been framed, and an important issue of jurisdiction was based upon a contention on the part of the defendants who are a Movietone Company of Madras, and a private individual who is said to have directed the production of the film in Madras on behalf of the 1st defendant and who lives in Madras, that the suit did not lie in Rajahmundry but lay only in Madras. The learned District Judge, after an elaborate judgment, has held that the suit did not lie in Rajahmundry and he has returned the plaint to the...
In Re: Pariti Narayana Murti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad654; (1942)2MLJ112
Horwill, J.1. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam of offences punishable under Sections 467, 471, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under each count, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The chief question in this appeal--as in the trial--is whether a confessional statement made by the accused on oath before the Assistant Registrar is admissible evidence against him. It is argued on a point of law that no statement made on oath can be a voluntary statement that would be admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The learned advocate for the appellant relies on Emperor v. Dawood Kuzhi I.L.R. (1925) Bom. 56, the decision of a single Judge. The question there was whether a statement made on oath by an accused person examined by a coroner was admissible against him in the Sessions trial. The learned Judge held that it was not. His judgment is concerned primarily with the questions whether the statement...
K.T.M. Ahmed Kasim Sahib Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-collector) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad665; (1942)2MLJ137
Abdur Rahman, J.1. A notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of a strip of land of 861 sq. feet in the area situate at the junction of the bazaar and the Railway feeder roads at Ramnad. This plot belonged to the appellant. Eleven small shops were in existence on the strip of land at the time when the notification was issued. Having regard to the income that was being got by the appellant from them he put forward a claim for Its. 17-8-0 per square feet. The land acquisition authorities however came to the conclusion that a rupee per square foot would be enough for this land and an award was made at that rate. Not being satisfied with the order the appellant applied to the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura and again repeated his claim for Rs. 17-8-0 per square foot. The Subordinate Judge agreed with the land acquisition authorities and Rejected Ms claim. He has now come up in appeal.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties there is not much ...
In Re: M.K. Rangai Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad702; (1942)2MLJ140
Horwill, J.1. The Okkaliga Mahajana Bank Limited, Karamadai went into voluntary liquidation on 15th June, 1934 on an extraordinary resolution passed by it; and the company appointed the accused, who was the secretary of the company, as the liquidator. He performed the duties of the liquidator, and in accordance with those duties he had to send in periodical returns of the position of the company as required by Section 244 of the Indian Companies Act. He showed the assets of the company as Rs. 53,010-12-0 and liabilities as Us. 36,465-2-2 in all of his returns. On 19th June, 1935, he made certain entries in the accounts which rendered the subsequent periodical statements incorrect. He owed to the company a sum of Rs. 33,600, on a promissory note; and on 19th June, 1935, he showed that amount on the credit side. On 20th March, 1935, he showed on the debit side as share capital--K. Kampai Goundar Rs. 2,000 and share capital--K. Ramaswami Goundar Rs. 2,000, these persons being his uncle an...
Meer Shaffi Sahib Vs. Abdul Kharim and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad608; (1942)2MLJ89
King, J.1. The main question involved in this appeal is whether an order of the District Munsif of Tenali, dated the 31st December, 1938 confirming a sale held in execution is void or not. The respondents who are the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor stated that the order was void because it was passed after the death of their father and without their having been impleaded in the execution petition. On the other hand, the decree-holder who appeals argues that the provisions of Order 22, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 92 justify the order confirming the sale even though the respondents' father was dead at the time it was passed. It seems to me that this contention of the appellant is bound to prevail.2. The facts are that there was an application by the respondents' father to set aside the sale and that application came up for arguments before the District Munsif in October, 1938 when the applicant was still alive. Arguments w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »