Chennai Court August 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.
Jaldu Balasubramaniam Chetty Vs. D. Kothandaramaswami Nayanim Varu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad688; (1942)2MLJ463
1. The question which has been referred reads as follows:Whether it is open to a person who is not eo nomine the decree-holder or the transferee of the decree, to apply for its execution on the ground that he is the real owner?2. As we intend to confine our answer to a case where the facts are similar to those of the present case, it is necessary for us to state them, in so far as they are relevant to the question. One Nookala Manickamma sued the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor to enforce payment of the amount due on a promissory note which had been executed in her favour and on 9th September 1936, she obtained a decree for the payment of Rs. 6175-3-0 with costs. The appellant who was joint with his father alleges that the promissory note constituted an asset of the family and that Nookala Manickamma held it as the benamidar of his father who was the manager. Nookala Manickamma and the appellant's father died before 8th December 1939. On that date the appe...
Natarajan Chettiar Vs. Perumal Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad246; (1942)2MLJ668
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff is an indorsee from the widow and the two sons of the payee, while the defendants are the widow and the son of the maker of the promissory note. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsiff of Palni on two grounds. The first was that the plaintiff could not succeed without a succession certificate and the second was that the members of the family of the deceased maker of the note could not be made liable for an obligation of the deceased under a promissory note. He relied on the Full Bench decision reported in Maruthamuthu Naicker v. Kadir Badsha Bowther : AIR1938Mad377 .2. The first point turns on the effect of Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, which says thatWhen a Hindu governed by any School of Hindu law other than the Dhayabag School or by customary law dies intestate having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) have in the propert...
District Magistrate of Cuddapah Vs. Syed Abdul Kareem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad526
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The accused is said to have made a false allegation against a certain Taluk Office Clerk that he demanded a bribe. The Collector, who was the superior officer of the clerk concerned, thought that the accused should be prosecuted and ordered the Revenue Divisional Officer to file a complaint. Two objections were raised during the trial. One was that the Collector should have filed the complaint himself and that he had no power to delegate that right to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The second ground was that the complaint should have been made to the Sub-Magistrate having jurisdiction at the place where the Collector received the letter. Both these contentions are correct, but the Sub-Magistrate, instead of returning the complaint for presentation to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, forwarded the papers to his immediate superior, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammalmadugu, under Section 346 (1), Criminal P.C. This was not the proper way to dispose of the matter,...
In Re: Krishanlal Roopchand and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad56; (1942)2MLJ574
Horwill, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 7(2) of the 'War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance, IX of 1940, of failing to insure his goods.2. The appellant is Messrs. Krishanlal Roopehand and Company; and the principal argument in appeal is that Ordinance IX of 1940 does not make it incumbent on firms to insure their goods but only on private individuals trading as such. The Ordinance lays down the liability of sellers of goods to insure their goods, and Section 7 says that after a date fixed by the Central Government, no person shall carry on any business as a seller of goods unless those goods are insured. Section 7 (2) makes any contravention of that provision punishable. The ordinary meaning of ''person'' under the General Clauses Act includes any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. So any firm, registered or not, would be a person within the meaning of the General Clauses Act, Section 3 (39); but it is argued that the wording of ...
Vemireddi Rangareddi Vs. Isaka Venkatareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad5; (1942)2MLJ592
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit on a mortgage Ex. A, dated 29th January, 1934, executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 26,730-10-0. The suit was instituted before Act IV of 1938 came into force. When that Act became operative an additional written statement was filed, in which it was contended that the suit debt was originally incurred in January, 1922, when an earlier mortgage deed was executed in favour of one Venku Reddi, the manager of the joint composite family of which the plaintiff was a member, that after Venku Reddi's death plaintiff became the manager of the composite family and that the suit mortgage deed was taken in the name of the plaintiff as such manager in renewal of the earlier mortgage deed. The learned Judge has found that the plaintiff was in fact the assignee of the original mortgagee because it appears that one debt was executed in discharge of the other debt and because the plaintiff alleged that he go...
The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Vs. Angara Singaracharyulu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad131; (1942)2MLJ705
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Bast Godavari Temple Committee, which was constituted under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, ceased to function in the year 1932, since when, the duties of the Committee have been performed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The question to be decided in these appeals is whether in the circumstances the Board is entitled to levy contributions under Sub-section (2) of Section 69 as well as under Sub-section (1) of that section. The appeals arise out of separate suits filed by the respective trustees of five non-excepted temples in the East Godavari district. The plaintiffs denied that the properties out of which the Board sought to enforce payment of the contribution under Sub-section (2) of Section 69 belonged to the temples. They claimed that they belonged to them as the archakas. They also denied that the Board was entitled to levy contributions under Sub-section (2) of Section 69, even if the properties belonged to the temp...
Katragadda Rajabapayya Vs. Devineni Basavayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad713; (1942)2MLJ515
King, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought on a promissory note executed in 1929 by the 1st defendant against whom in February, 1932, the plaintiff filed an insolvency petition. That, insolvency petition for reasons into which we need not enter remained pending for nearly eight years and was finally dismissed in December, 1939. It was in August, 1940, that the plaintiff brought the present suit on the promissory note. On a cursory inspection of the dates of course it will be seen that such a debt would be barred by limitation, but the plaintiff contended that his suit fell within the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to accept this contention and dismissed the suit on this one question of limitation leaving the other issues untried. In so doing he awarded no costs to the defendants, stating merely that he passed this order 'under the circumstances of the case'. Against this the plaintiff has appealed and the two defendants have...
K. Nambi Doss Vs. the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts by Sri R. Rajago ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad567; (1943)2MLJ80
Happell, J.1. The appellant was the President of the Panchayat Board of Veeravanallur and on the 12th November, 1938, he was surcharged in a sum of Rs. 240-14-0 under Rule 5 of the Surcharge Rules of the Madras Local Boards Act. He filed a petition in t+he Court of the Lisurct Judge of Tinnevelly to have the surcharge set aside. The petition was dismissed and this appeal is against the order of the District Judge.2. The surcharge was made in connection with a payment of Rs. 683-14-0 for the repair of a stretch of road within the Veeravanallur Union limits. The objection taken was that the appellant had provided in the estimates for leads for metal, gravel and earthwork of unnecessary length. Rule 5 of the Surcharge Rules provides that any auditor empowered by the local Government may charge against any person responsible therefor the amount of any deficiency or loss incurred by the negligence or misconduct of that person. In short, therefore, the appellant was surcharged on the allegat...
C.R. Subramania Aiyar Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ448
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether the Official Assignee is entitled to charge commission when funds have been paid into his hands in pursuance of a scheme of composition. The appellant was adjudicated an insolvent by this Court on the 8th January, 1936. His liabilities amounted to Rs. 56,978, but he was entitled to have his debts scaled under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1938, and when this had been done his total indebtedness was reduced to Rs. 47,832. Later three creditors withdrew their claims, and as the result of their action the total indebtedness was reduced further to Rs. 33,887-7-6. The Official Assignee sold certain properties belonging to the insolvent and in this way realized Rs, 9,538-15-8. At this stage the appellant made a proposal to his creditors that they should waive interest and that they should be paid the principal sums due to them in full. He had arranged with one Mr. R. S. A. Sankara Aiyar, a banker, to advance...
Sait Parasuram Byas Vs. Matte Atchutaramarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad145; (1942)2MLJ673
King, J.1. The appellant here is one of the judgment-debtors under the decree in O.S. No. 41 of 1936, in the Court of the District Judge of Bast Godavari. That decree was passed in a suit by the plaintiff to direct the defendants to render an account of their administration of an estate; and as usual in such suits, originally court-fee was paid upon the estimated value of the decree expected. It was found upon adjudication that a larger sum than this was due to the plaintiff and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Court Fees Act, a clause was inserted in the decree that the decree should not be executed unless the plaintiff pays a further court-fee or Us. 157-8-0, which would have been payable if he had originally sued for the sum decreed. After this decree was passed, the 4th defendant is said to have offered to plaintiff the amount due under the decree out of Court. The plaintiff, however, refused to receive it and thereupon the 4th defendant deposited that amount ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »