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.
Govinda Krishna Aiyar Vs. Minor Sankaralinga Naicker, Through His Next ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad55; (1942)2MLJ558
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The order of the learned Judge setting aside the sale and all proceedings in execution taken by the appellant subsequent to the decree in O.S. No. 45 of 1926 is based upon his conclusions on two points. The first is that the guardian ad litem of defendants ,4 and 5 had not been duly served with notice of the Execution Petition No. 132 of 1932. What happened was, notice was taken out by the appellant decree-holder and the return on the notice was that it was affixed because the guardian was not to be found and was evading service. On this return being brought to the notice of the Court, the Court declared these defendants ex parte. Our attention has not been drawn to the terms of this order; but we understand that this was what, happened at the time when the order declaring them, ex parte was passed. It is true that the view was taken in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Thaivanai Achi : AIR1936Mad812 . by a single learned Judge of this Court that there should be an exp...
C.D. Desikachari Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad26; (1942)2MLJ714
King, J.1. This is an extraordinary case. The appellant on his own petition was adjudicated an insolvent in December, 1930. In July, 1932, he was granted an absolute order of discharge and the order shows that this was granted for two reasons--(1) because there was no mala fide conduct on the part of the insolvent and (2) because no creditor had proved his debt before the Official Receiver and therefore no one was entitled to oppose his petition for an order of absolute discharge. At the time of the insolvent's discharge apparently the insolvent was in possession of a number of acres of wet and dry lands and this property was vested in the Official Receiver. Naturally when the order of discharge was granted the Official Receiver had done nothing in regard to the disposal of this property as there were no creditors properly before him. More than 7 years later one of the Official Receiver's creditors applied that the insolvent's property should be sold and the learned District Judge of C...
V. Ramaswami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Doraisami Vandayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ748
Kunhi Raman, J.1. In these cases the only question of law that arises for consideration is whether it is incumbent upon the petitioners who are receivers appointed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta to the estate of the deceased R.M.Ar. Ar.Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar to obtain succession certificates before claiming decrees in the suits filed by them against certain debtors of the estate. It is conceded that these debts are all due under promissory notes executed in favour of the deceased person. In a litigation that arose after the death of the deceased, the petitioners were appointed receivers with express authority to sue in their own names as they have done in these suits and realise the outstandings. The Court below has arrived at the conclusion that succession certificates are necessary in view of the provisions of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act. Because such certificates were not produced within the time allowed to the petitioners by the lower Court the su...
A.L.N. Sathappa Chetti and ors. Vs. Thayyanayaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad698; (1942)2MLJ305
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the appellants. They are the legal representatives of the 1st plaintiff who died subsequent to the filing of the suit. The appeal is against the decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The properties in dispute were purchased by the 1st plaintiff on 1st May, 1924, at a sale held for arrears of rent. The Revenue Court granted a sale certificate on 10th November, 1924. Subsequently there was an application for delivery of possession of the property and we find from a receipt granted to the party with the endorsement of the Revenue Inspector thereon that there was delivery of the property on 12th May, 1925. This suit was filed on 3rd May, 1937, for recovery of possession of the property. There was a building on the site and the defendant has all along been living in it. She pleaded that as she had been in possession for over twelve years the suit was barred by limitation that the delivery of possession on 12th May, 1925, was only a paper de...
In Re: M. Murtuzali Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad336; (1943)1MLJ247
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has long been in possession of an old cart-stand which contained none of the modern hygienic devices for rendering it sanitary. On 20th March, 1940, he applied to the executive authority of the Municipality of Madura to renew his licence for the year 1940-41. No orders were passed on his application until 4th December, 1940, when he was granted a licence subject to certain conditions. This licence with conditions imposed reached him on 18th January, 1941. He did not comply with these conditions, and so prosecution was launched on 19th March, 1941. The Stationary Second Class Magistrate considered that he was guilty of a failure to observe the terms of the licence and was therefore punishable under Section 338 of the District Municipalities Act. In appeal, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that no notice was given to him as is required under Section 338, and that therefore he could not be punished. The City First Glass Magistrate held that Sectio...
P.C. Kandaswamy Pillai Vs. Municipal Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad601; (1942)2MLJ145
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner constructed a window, the panels of which when swung open passed six inches beyond the road boundary. He was therefore called upon by the executive authority of the Palghat Municipality under Section 181(2) of the District Municipalities Act to alter the window so that no part of it when open projected over the street. As he did not do so, he has been prosecuted and convicted and ordered to pay a fine of Re. 1.2. The surveyor reported that when the window was fastened back it did not project over the road, nor did it when it was shut. It was only in the process of opening and shutting that the panels of the window swung over a small area of the street. The question is (1) whether that swinging over the road for a moment or two would . amount to an encroachment and (2) whether, more specifically, it came within the mischief of Section 181 (2) of the Act. By an encroachment is generally understood something that hangs more or less permanently over the ro...
In Re: Bellemkonda Kanakayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad609; (1942)2MLJ172
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The first accused in this case was the owner of a shop where he kept and offered for sale certain ghee which was found on analysis to be adulterated to the extent of 35 per cent. The second accused was working in that shop and his duty was to sell the ghee to customers. The Sanitary Inspector entered the shop, exercised his powers under Section 14 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, and demanded a sample from the second accused, who was then selling articles in his master's absence. When this sample was found to be adulterated ghee, both the accused were prosecuted. The Sub-Magistrate of Guntur, thought that both of them were guilty. In appeal, the Special First Class Magistrate came to the conclusion that because the first accused was absent and no notice was given to him as required by Section 15 that it was intended to have the sample analysed, that the trial and conviction of the first accused was vitiated. He however considered that the conviction of t...
A. Krishnaswami Vandayar Vs. the Union Bank, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad10; (1942)2MLJ346
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a 'question relating to the effect of Section 10(2)(iii) of Madras Act IV of 1938 which excludes from the purview of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act any liability in respect of any sum due to a public company or a scheduled bank, if the interest payable in respect of the liability is not more than nine per cent, per annum.2. The facts of the present case so far as they are necessary are that the appellant borrowed from the plaintiff-bank by way of a, standing overdraft, secured by the execution of promissory notes. It is common ground that the arrangement was that the appellant should pay interest at the current rate charged by the bank. The rate at the inception of the dealings was nine per cent. It never exceeded nine per cent. and in later years it fell to seven per cent. The understanding was that 'every half year the interest should be calculated and in accordance with the practice followed in bank accounts it was treated as having been paid and adva...
The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Vs. Dosapati Ramiah, Trustee of S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad722; (1942)2MLJ493
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant before this Court is the 1st defendant, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. The plaintiff was the trustee of the Sri Venugopalaswami Varu temple of Alapadu village. As he failed to pay the contributions payable by the temple under Section 68 of the Endowments Act, a requisition was sent to the Collector under Section 70 of that Act and the plaint mentioned A and B schedule properties were attached by him. The plaintiff thereupon filed the suit for a declaration that the A schedule properties alone were the properties of the temple and the B schedule properties were specially endowed properties and that he was liable to pay only a proportionate share of the contribution payable on A schedule properties and for an injunction restraining the Board from enforcing the order against the A schedule properties in respect of the entire contribution. The 2nd defendant is the archaka of the temple. He claimed the B schedule properties as his own aid ...
In Re: Tentu Appalaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad664; (1942)2MLJ354
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This revision case was admitted because neither the trial Magistrate nor the Sessions Judge in appeal indicated in any way the nature of the documents that were the subject of the charge and it was therefore impossible to judge whether the sentence imposed was reasonable or otherwise. After going through the various exhibits it is clear that literature found in the possession of the petitioner was of a particularly virulent nature, especially Ex. C-1. It is argued that as only mere possession has been proved and there was no indication that the petitioner owned that literature or disseminated seditious views, the sentence is excessive. Possession simpliciter is however liable to a heavy sentence under the Defence of India Rules and the manuscript Ex. D indicates that the literature found was intended to be disseminated. The sentence which has been considered reasonable by tho two Courts below cannot, therefore, in any view of the matter be deemed to be excessive. I f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›