Chennai Court July 1942 Judgments
W. Sivaraj Lal Vs. Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Limited by Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad62
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The appellant, a puisne mortgagee, holds a simple mortgage executed in his favour on 21st April 1922 by respondent 2 over his house and ground No. 43, Veeraraghava Mudali Street, Triplicane. In this the sons of respondent 2 also joined. The principal amount secured by the mortgage is stated to be Rs. 7000. But in fact, the appellant had advanced only Rs. 3400. The earlier mortgage was a possessory one and also contained a power of sale. This mortgage had been executed on 31st October 1920, the mortgagee being the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Limited. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 4000. Default having been made in the due payment of the mortgage money as stipulated in the deed, the Fund exercised its power of sale and sold the property at an auction held on 5th June 1926. The sale fetched Rs. 5750 out of which Rs. 120 went towards the expenses of the auction, Rs. 84-10-0 towards the municipal tax and quit rent due on the property. A su...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaswami Achari and ors. Vs. Kandaswami Achari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad742; (1942)2MLJ468
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants for recovery of the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by one Govinda Achari the 3rd respondent herein who is now dead, in favour of the mother of the appellants 2 to 4. These appellants obtained a succession certificate in respect of the suit debt and endorsed the promissory note to their husband the 1st appellant herein for collection of the amount due thereunder. The 1st appellant thereupon brought the suit and appellants 2-4 were subsequently joined as co-plaintiffs therein.2. The trial Court passed a decree against the deceased 3rd respondent personally and against the family properties in the hands of his sons the respondents 1 and 2; but the lower appellate Court purporting to follow the decision of this Court in Vira Baghavalu Naidu v. Chinna Rajalingam : AIR1939Mad846 . reversed the decree against respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed the suit as against them, holding tha...
Tag this Judgment!The Firm of Patnam Lakshminarayana Chetty Represented by Its Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ562
Happell, J.1. The appellant was directed by the District . Munsiff of Kurnool in whose Court he had filed a suit for recovery of a sum due under a promissory note to produce a succession certificate. He accordingly filed a petition in the Court of the District Judge of Kurnool under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. This petition was opposed by one of the defendants in the suit on the promissory note, who was also the wife of the assignor of the promissory note to the appellant. She claimed that the debt in question together with other properties had been left to her husband and herself jointly and that her husband had no right to assign the promissory note to the appellant. The learned District Judge, taking the view that complicated questions of fact and law would have to be gone into before it could be decided which party had the right to the succession certificate proceeded to refer the parties to a suit, if so advised, and dismissed the petition. The learned District Judge...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rangaswami Nayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad394; (1943)1MLJ246
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Proceedings have been instituted against the petitioners under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. This Court has been asked to quash the proceedings because it has been held by this Court that breaches of the peace in the past do not justify an order under Section 107. In the alternative, I am asked to order that evidence of specific offences which are the subject of separate trials should not be admitted in the security proceedings.2. Although it is true that Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, gives authority to a Court to call upon persons to furnish security only if it is likely that a breach of the peace will occur in the future, yet I have no reason to believe that the Magistrate will pass an order against the petitioners unless he is satisfied that breaches of the peace will occur in the future as they have occurred in the past. I am not prepared to anticipate what the learned Magistrate is going to say or do in these proceedings.3. On the second point, I...
Tag this Judgment!Arunagiri Chettiar Vs. Kuppuswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad655; (1942)2MLJ275
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note executed for Rs. 1,400 on 4th June, 1936. The question in appeal arises under sections 9 and 12 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The appellant made payments totalling Rs. 210 before the Act came into force. These payments were more than the amount due for interest as scaled down under Section 9. They were definitely appropriated to interest and there can be no question of any refund. After the Act came into force, the appellant made a payment of Rs. 100 towards interest on 24th September, 1938, and another payment on 12th April, 1939, of which Rs. 320 was appropriated to interest and Rs. 30 to principal. These two payments for interest are very considerably in excess of the amount of interest as scaled down under Section 12 to 6% per cent, per annum.2. It is argued in appeal that, granted that there can be no refund of excess payments after re-appropriation in the manner laid down in Section 9, there is no provisio...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chellappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad715; (1942)2MLJ308
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The District Magistrate of Ramnad has come to the conclusion that a case tried by the Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvadadanai is beyond his jurisdiction, because there were allegations in the complaint indicating that an offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code, was committed, which offence is not triable by a Second Class Magistrate. The District Magistrate has therefore referred the matter to this Court in order that the case may be transferred from the file of that Sub-Magistrate to that of some Magistrate having jurisdiction.2. The District Magistrate has as much power to transfer under Section 528 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as this Court has under Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code; but neither the District Magistrate nor this Court ought to transfer a case where the Magistrate has no jurisdiction, the proper procedure being for the Magistrate to return the complaint, telling the complainant that he may present the complaint to the Court having jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!Chennakesava Aiyangar Vs. the Official Liquidator, the Coimbatore Maha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad54; (1942)2MLJ583
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Coimbatore holding that an assignment in favour of the appellant made on 2nd March, 1939, by the Mahalakshmi Bank, Limited, now in liquidation, was a fraudulent preference. The question was considered by the learned Judge under two heads and on two different dates. First, he considered the question whether the assignment which has been impugned was within three months of the act of insolvency. Section 231 of the Indian Companies Act which applies the principle of fraudulent preference enacted by Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to companies states as follows:(1) Any transfer, delivery of goods, payment, execution or other act relating to property which would, if made or done by or against an individual, be deemed in his insolvency a fraudulent preference, shall, if made or done by or against a company, be deemed, in the event of its being wound up, a fraudulent preference of its creditors, a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Alati Appalaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad735; (1942)2MLJ718
Horwill, J.1. The petitioners are the president and vice-president of the Chittivalasa Labour Union, connected with the Chittivalasa Mills. They have been convicted under rule 35 (4) read with rule 38 (5) of the Defence of India Rules and sentenced by the Joint Magistrate of Vizianagaram to nine months' rigorous imprisonment each. In appeal to the Sessions Judge, these convictions were Confirmed as well as the sentences.2. The prejudicial act alleged to have been committed by the petitioners was the bringing about of a strike by the mill workers and thereby impeding the war effort; for the mill in question was turning out sand bags and other articles urgently required by the Government for the prosecution of the war. The petitioners also indulged in picketting, thus dissuading workers from going to work. The reason for the strike was that a woman named Ellamma was dismissed because she stuck a bodkin or needle of some sort into another worker. The Labour Union seems to have thought tha...
Tag this Judgment!The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Vs. Peddinti Sitarama Charyulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad193; (1942)2MLJ732
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The defendant, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, is the appellant and the appeal arises out of a suit filed by the archaka trustee of a temple for an injunction restraining the Board from asserting any right to recover or from recovering any contribution from the temple, as due under Section 60-A of the Madras Acts II of 1927 and XI of 1931. The Board claimed a right to collect not only for the current fasli, but also for nine faslis prior to the then current fasli. The first Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court found that the Board had no power to levy arrears and that it had power only to levy for the current and for the prior fasli. Hence this appeal. The only point for consideration is whether the Board had power to levy the contribution for faslis 1336 and 1344.2. The learned Subordinate Judge conceded that there was no period of limitation fixed for recovering contributions and that the contribution was payable only after its levy but he was of...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ghulam Khadir Sahib and ors. Vs. Minor Viswanathayyar, by His Mot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad297; (1942)2MLJ768
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the last execution petition E.P. No. 169 of 1940, filed on 2nd September, 1940 is barred by limitation under Article 182 (5) of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Subordinate Judge in the Court below has held that it is not. The appellants who are the judgment-debtors contend that the decision of the Subordinate Judge is erroneous.2. The relevant facts and events are the following:6th March, 1930. Preliminary mortgage decree in favour of theplaintiff. 13th August, 1930. Final decree.1931. E.P. No. 24 of 1931 for sale of the hypotheca.24th August, 1931. E.P. No. 24 of 1931 closed and removed aftersome of the items of mortgaged property were sold and Rs. 14,871 was realised.2nd October, 1933. Fresh E.P. filed, but never numbered.5th October, 1933. The above E.P. was returned with the endorse-ment, 'Sale papers should be filed with encumbrance certificates tip to date of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »