Chennai Court September 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.
The Advocate-general Vs. Sri Ramanatha Goenka, Editor, Printer and Pub ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ622
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is the editor, printer and publisher of 'The. Indian Express'. He has been called upon to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras. On the 14th August he was convicted by the Third Presidency Magistrate of having published in his newspaper an obscene advertisement and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a week. The respondent had the right to challenge the correctness of the conviction and sentence in an application to this Court but he accepted the decision and consequently no application for revision was filed. On the 16th August, he published a leading article in his newspaper in the course of which he said:The prosecution clearly stated that the case was filed as the result of ' correspondence from Government' but with the blessings of the Magistrate refused to produce the correspondence and the statement had...
M. Raghava Reddiar Vs. Odur Devarajulu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad236; (1942)2MLJ724
Wadsworth, J.1. Defendant in 1931 executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,400 in favour of the plaintiff. This was renewed in June, 1934, for a sum of Rs. 1,806-14-6. Plaintiff sued on this second promissory note. Two payments were made and endorsed upon it, one of Rs. 100 on 1st June, 1935 and one of Rs. 940 on 2nd October, 1936. The endorsements do not show any specific appropriation of these payments towards interest or principal, and the question at issue is how these payments are to be treated in the scaling down of the debt under the provisions of Act IV of 1938. The two lower Courts have held that the plaintiff appropriated these payments before 1st October, 1937, partly to the complete discharge of the interest due when the payments were made, and partly to the principal of the suit promissory note. The second appeal was heard by Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ., who have both held that this view is wrong. The learned Judges, however, have differed in another respect, and in co...
M. Kothandapani Mudaliar Vs. Dhanammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad253; (1943)1MLJ56
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner. The suit was to recover the amount due under a promissory note executed by him in favour of one Lakshmi Amrnal who subsequently endorsed the note to the plaintiff-respondent. On the evidence, the trial Court has found that the suit promissory note, Ex. A, was executed by the defendant in consideration of past illicit intercourse and has decreed the suit.2. The petitioner's learned advocate relies upon the decision of Sundaram Chetty, J., in Ganapathi Chetti v. Sundararaja Pillai I.L.R. 1930 Mad. 239, where the learned Judge took the view that past illicit cohabitation is immoral consideration under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and it cannot therefore support a promise. The plaintiff-respondent's learned advocate on the other hand argues on the authority of certain other decisions which will be referred to presently that so far as this Court is concerned, it is now settled that although future illicit cohabitation cannot suppor...
V. Varadaramanujalu Naidu Vs. Kaunanoor Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ571
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a complaint filed by the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, under Sections 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a false statement said to have been given by the appellant in an affidavit to the Registrar that a certain house in Madras was his own property. The main point taken in. appeal is that the complaint which was filed by the Registrar under the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is incompetent because the Registrar is not a Court. It seems to me that this objection to the validity of the complaint must be upheld.2. Under Section 14 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act the Provincial Government may invest the Registrar with the powers of a Judge under this Act for the trial of suits in which the amount or value of the subject-matter does not exceed twenty rupees. It is clear from this section that if the Provincial Government has so invested the Registrar with powers, the ...
The Asiatic Government Security Life Assurance Company Limited Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad42; (1942)2MLJ601
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This case discloses another example of the maladministration of the Debt Conciliation Act.2. On the 26th December, 1989, the petitioner obtained a mortgage decree against the 2nd respondent for the payment of the sum of Rs. 6,760, inclusive of interest and costs. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal to this Court and asked for a stay of execution. A stay was granted on terms which were not complied with. Consequently the application for stay was dismissed. The trial Court eventually passed a final decree and the petitioner applied for the sale of the hypotheca. The sale was fixed for the 3rd December, 1941. Bight days before, the 2nd respondent applied to the Debt Conciliation Board of Erode for settlement of his debts. The Board intimated to the debtor and his creditors that it would hear objections to the application on the 20th December, 1941. The petitioner appeared before the Board and stated that he objected to the Board making any order of settle...
In Re: Naupadu Narasimhamurti Patnaick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad470; (1943)1MLJ382
ORDERByers, J.1. The order of the District Magistrate of Vizagapatam which the petitioners now seek to revise was one passed in the exercise of his administrative magisterial functions directing the Taluk Magistrate and the Sharistadar Magistrate of Patapatnam not to allow certain unauthorised persons to practise in their Courts. These four persons are legal practitioners enrolled in the Province of Orissa, three of them apparently being pleaders and the fourth a mukhtar. They practise in Parlakimidi which is in Orissa but is close to Patapatnam, the nearest town in British India. The District Magistrate observed that they should enrol themselves under the Madras High Court if they wished to practise in the district of Vizagapatam and he directed the two Magistrates mentioned not to allow them to practise in their Courts.2. On their behalf it has been urged that under Section 340 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code the petitioners are entitled to appear with the permission of the Magist...
R. Srinivasa Thathachariar Vs. Minor Sivasubramania Chettiar by Next F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad196; (1942)2MLJ631
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether a purchaser of a portion of mortgaged property who is an 'agriculturist' within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists' Belief Act is entitled to redeem the whole of the property on payment only of the scaled down amount of the debt, so as to prevent the mortgagee from recovering the mortgage money in full from the rest of the hypotheca in the hands of a non-agriculturist purchaser from the mortgagor.2. One Ramaswami Chetty now represented by the respondent brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to enforce a mortgage executed in his favour on 7th November, 1917, for Rs. 4,000 repayable with interest at 12 per cent. per annum with yearly rests. The mortgage comprised a house and a village with its, hamlets. As the result of certain proceedings in execution of decrees obtained by third parties against the mortgagor a portion of the mortgaged house worth about Rs. 1,000 passed to the appellant (22nd defendant) who ...
Kalyanasundaram Aiyar Vs. Chinna Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad83; (1942)2MLJ689
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant obtained a decree against the respondents declaring that he held both the melwaram and the kndiwaram rights in certain land then in the occupation of the respondents. This decree became final on the 26th January, 1934, as the result of the decision of this Court in L.P.A. No. 12 of 1931. On the 22nd January, 1937, the appellant filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Sankaridrug at Salem an application for an order in execution of his decree. The District Munsiff held that by reason of Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act, as it now stands, the application for possession of the property did not lie. This decision was challenged in an appeal to the District Judge, who reversed the decision of the District Munsiff. The respondents then appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by King, J., who restored the judgment of the District Munsiff. This appeal is from the judgment of King, J., under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. On...
Mahalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Subramania Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Mad43; (1943)2MLJ513
Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. The appellants were the decree-holders in O.S. No. 41 of 1925 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. Their execution petition was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The decree in this case was passed on 28th March, 1933. The first application for execution was filed on the 28th June, 1933. The judgment-debtor was committed to jail under an order passed on 8th July, 1933. A second application was filed on the 4th July, 1936. It was returned for amending some of the entries therein on the 8th July, 1936, but was re-presented on the 30th July, 1936, with a prayer that the delay in re-presentaion may be excused and praying for ten days more to comply with the requirements. The delay was excused and the time was granted. It was re-presented on the 10th August, 1936, and it had to be returned again as some of the defects pointed out were not rectified and ten days more was granted on the 18th ...
Marimuthu Pillai Vs. Abdul Ganni Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1942
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ521
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 309 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Valangiman at Kumbakonam. He had obtained a decree for past and future profits on the 7th December, 1933. He filed a petition to execute the decree on the 24th February, 1934, without paying the court-fee payable on the relief claimed in respect of the future profits; but he had included in it the claim in respect of the past profits also. It was returned on the 28th February, 1934, for complying with certain defects and also for payment of the court-fee. The defects were complied with but the court-fee was not paid. The appellant's contention was that no court-fee was payable. The petition 'was therefore posted to be heard in Court on 16th April, 1934. The vakil happened to be absent and the petition was dismissed for default on the 27th April, 1934. Another execution petition was filed on the 26th April, 1937, for the very same reliefs which were prayed fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »