Chennai Court July 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.
Karunalaya Valangupuli Pandian Alias Karunalaya Pandian Vs. Rev. Fathe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad67; (1942)2MLJ350
Somayya, J.1. This petition is filed by the plaintiff for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the judgment and decree of this Court in A.S. No. 32 of 1938. It is opposed by the respondent who was the first defendant on the ground that the decree of this Court confirmed the decision of the lower Court and that there is no substantial question of law so as to justify the grant of leave under the last paragraph of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code. The properties are admittedly worth over Rs. 10,000, and the only question is whether the other conditions of Section 110 are satisfied.2. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this application are these. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties as the trustee of an endowment for certain services in Sri Papavinasa Swami Temple at Vikramasingapuram, Tinnevelly district. The properties in suit were admittedly the inams originally endowed for the performance of this trust. But, during...
In Re: Pedda Kambi Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad345; (1943)1MLJ248
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Sub-Magistrate of Piler, being of opinion that the accused ought to be dealt with in a manner beyond his own powers, acted under Section 349, Criminal Procedure Code and referred the case to the Joint Magistrate of Madanapalle. The Joint Magistrate duly convicted and sentenced all of the accused and also passed an order under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. It is not quite clear from the record that the accused were present when the Joint Magistrate disposed of the reference, but we may assume that the Joint Magistrate did what was obviously required of him. We find that a letter was sent to the Sub-Magistrate of Piler ordering him to bind over the accused before him on the 17 th December, 1941, but there are no bonds in the record to suggest that they were bound over. However that may be, the Joint Magistrate certainly did not dispose of the case in a satisfactory manner. The case, after the reference to him, was a continuation of the original tria...
In Re: the District Magistrate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad398; (1943)1MLJ258
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. The accused in this case was charged under Section 34 of the Public Health Act of 1939 with allowing sewage water to run into a public street. The accused seems to have pleaded guilty, but at the same time given an explanation which the District Magistrate considers to have amounted to a plea of' Not guilty.'2. As I understand the accused's explanation, he has an easement right to allow his water to run into his neighbour's land, but apparently that water runs from there into the public street. Even though he is allowed to run the water into his neighbour's land, he is nevertheless punishable under the section under which he is charged; for he caused the water to run into the public street through his neighbour's land.3. No interference in revision is called for.4. The reference is returned....
Chinnaswami Chetty Vs. Parvathiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad757; (1942)2MLJ589
Wadsworth, J.1. This case raises a question under Sections 19 and 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938 on rather peculiar facts. The petitioner was the judgment-debtor and when proceedings in execution were pending, he obtained an order of stay under Section 20 of Act IV in August, 1939. He did not follow up that stay order with an application under Section 19 within sixty days, as contemplated in the proviso to Section 20. Apparently, though the facts are not on record, the judgment-debtor was taking proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board and the pendency of these proceedings was regarded as a sufficient reason for not proceeding at once under Section 19. Whatever be the reason, both parties remained inactive; the execution of the decree was abandoned and nothing was done by the judgment-debtor to get the decree scaled down until 9th September, 1940, i.e., more than a year after the stay order. This application under Section 19 was opposed by the decree-holder and on 27th September, 19...
Rao Bahadur Mothey Gangaraju Zamindar Garu of Ellore Vs. Sree Raja Bom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad235; (1942)2MLJ716
King, J.1. The parties in this petition are decree-holder and auction purchaser respectively in the matter of a sale held in 1933. The auction purchaser, of course, deposited the money required including poundage, and this money remained in Court for four years. In the meanwhile the judgment-debtor initiated proceedings which resulted in the setting aside of the sale. The auction purchaser accordingly applied for the return of his purchase money and also for the return of poundage. The first order which was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ellore was on the 25th November, 1939. In that order the return of the money with interest was ordered, but the petitioner was informed that he should apply to Government if he wished to obtain refund of the poundage. The decree-holder was dissatisfied with this order in so far as it called upon him to pay interest and he applied under Order 47 for review. The learned Subordinate Judge granted the review and passed an order refusing to call...
Kona Hasan Fathima Bivi (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Muhammad Muhaideen Nac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad87; (1942)2MLJ506
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application made by the petitioners to the Court of the District Judge of Bast Tanjore for scaling down a decree debt under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The respondents sued to recover the amount due under a promissory note executed by the petitioners' father on 6th April, 1920, and obtained a decree on 1st November, 1930. The petitioners' father who was the 1st defendant in the suit died on 27th September, 1936, and the petitioners, who were his heirs under the Mohammadan Law, were brought on record in the execution proceedings as his legal representatives. After the Act came into force in March, 1938, the petitioners claiming to be agriculturists as defined in. the Act applied to have the decree debt scaled down in accordance with the provisions thereof. The application was resisted on the ground inter alia that the petitioners' father who was the original debtor was ...
Narayanan Chetti and ors. Vs. Nallammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad635; (1942)2MLJ525
1. This second appeal has been placed before a Full Bench for decision, as King, J., before whom the appeal came in the first instance, considered that the judgment of this. Court in Sesha Aiyar v. Krishna Aiyangar : (1900)10MLJ383 . , on which the Courts below had relied required reconsideration. In order to appreciate the application of Sesha Aiyar v. Krishna Aiyangar : (1900)10MLJ383 . , it is necessary to state the facts in the present case.2. On the 28th June, 1927, one Swaminatha Aiyar mortgaged immovable property to the grandfather of the plaintiffs to secure the sum of Rs. 3,000. On the 14th December, 1928, the mortgagor conveyed to his daughter the eastern portion of the property. She took it, of course, subject to the mortgage of the 28th June, 1927. On the 4th November, 1929, the mortgagor borrowed Rs. 700 from the plaintiffs' grandfather on the security of a second mortgage of the western portion. On the 24th April, 1934, the 2nd defendant bought the western portion in a Co...
Muthu Goundan and ors. Vs. Mottayan Alias Kolanda Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad150; (1942)2MLJ617
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant in S.A. No. 780 and his sons, defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in the other appeal. These two appeals arise out of a suit filed by the respondent for damages for breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. Under a sale deed executed on the 19th April, 1928, the 1st defendant conveyed the plaint mentioned properties to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,000. It was recited in the document that the sale was for discharging a debt due to one Poongavanam Ammal. It was a mortgage debt. The plaintiff's case was that the understanding between the parties was that the 1st defendant should discharge the mortgage. The recital in the document that Rs. 1,000 was received for discharging his debt was relied on in support of his case. The 1st defendant pleaded that the money due to Poongavanam Ammal was left with the vendee for payment and therefore he was not bound to pay it. A suit was filed for recovery of the money due under the ...
S. Subbiah Pillai and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ653
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, has referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act the following questions:Q.--(1) 'Whether the appeal is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation in the circumstances of this case?'Q.--(2) 'Whether the assessee is entitled to a refund of the deposit of Rs. 100, when the appeal is rejected not on the merits but on the ground of limitation?2. The reference discloses a surprising situation, but fortunately it is not likely to arise again. The assessee desired to appeal to the Tribunal against an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, dated the 24th November, 1940. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was constituted as from the 25th January, 1941, by notification published in the Gazette of India of that date. Section 33 of the Act, as now amended requires that an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be presented within sixty days from the date on which the appellant was served wi...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Dutts' Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad243; (1942)2MLJ651
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The firm of U.B. Dutt and Company in which there were three partners, carried on business as general merchants in Calicut. They also owned a cinema and a Saw Mill at Kallai and a rice mill at Ernakulam. In 1935, certain creditors applied for the adjudication of the partners as insolvents under the Provincial Insolvency Act. This petition was not proceeded with, because on the 14th December, 1935, an agreement was arrived at under which the debtors' properties were to be conveyed to trustees for the benefit of their creditors. Accordingly the debtors' assets were conveyed to three trustees with power to realise what was necessary and to pay the creditors proportionately out of the monies they received. The trustees sold the cinema in the firm's financial year which ended on the 30th June, 1937. The general business was also sold, but they carried on the Saw Mill business which proved to be a profitable concern. The profits made from the Saw Mill were su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »