Chennai Court November 1943 Judgments
Public Prosecutor Vs. Narayana Sing
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad236
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused in C. C. No. 449 of 1943 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Anantapur. He was charged under Rule 29 (b) of the Rules framed under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and Section 5 (1) (b) of the said Act read with Rule 27. The case against the accused was that he was selling milk adulterated with water on 28th March last. The Sanitary Inspector found him offering milk for sale. He purchased from him milk for two annas with a view to test it. He tested the milk and found that it was adulterated with water. He made samples of it and gave a declaration to the accused and sent a report. P.W. 1 the Sanitary Inspector proved the purchase by him for two annas of the milk which the accused was offering for sale. He took out of it three samples and sent one to the chemical analyst. The analyst's report showed that the sample milk sent to him contained 46 per cent. water. The Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Narayanaswami Chettiar Vs. Gurukkar Rudrappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad314
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant to set aside an auction sale of certain properties belonging to his family in execution of a decree for about Rs. 1000 obtained against him and his coparceners. The sale was held on 19th September 1935, and the properties were purchased by respondent 2, herein a stranger, but the sale was not confirmed as the judgment-debtors applied to have the sale set aside under O.21, R.90, Civil P.C. While the said proceeding was dragging on its weary length through the various Courts-it is said to be still pending in some form in this Court - the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act was passed on 22nd March 1938, and the decree was amended on 26th September 1939, by scaling down the amount due thereunder to a sum of Rs. 448-7-6 only in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Thereupon the appellant deposited the said sum in Court on 5th January 1940, to be paid to the decree-holder in satisfaction of the amended...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. and Q. Bank Ltd. Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad396
Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the liquidators of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd., now in liquidation under a compulsory winding up order made by this Court on 7th September 1933, are entitled to certain security deposited in the Court of Small Causes, Madras, or whether the Official Assignee as representing the estate of an insolvent named M. Elayaperumal Naicker is entitled to it. In Small Cause Suit No. 5185 of 1936 the bank sued one Dr. A. R. Krishnaswami Ayyar and another to recover a sum of Rs. 1728. On 22nd July 1936 the suit was decreed ex parte. Defendant 1 then moved the Court to set aside the decree and on 4th August 1936 it was set aside on terms. Defendant 1 was to deposit in Court in cash a sum of Rs. 750 or furnish security for this sum to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Court. Security was furnished by M. Elayaperumal Naicker, who deposited in Court five shares of the Reserve Bank of India and together with defendant 1 execute...
Tag this Judgment!Jaldu Manikyala Rao Vs. Meerza Gulam Raza
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad370a
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant in the C.M.S.A. is the auction purchaser in the sale held in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 50 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Masulipatam. He is also the petitioner in the connected C.R.P. and in both he disputes the correctness of the order of the learned District Judge of Kistna in C. M. A. No. 18 of 1942 setting aside the sale in toto in favour of the petitioner. They suit O.S. No. 50 of 1926 was filed by respondent 3 a creditor of one Raza Ali for recovery of money due to him. As Raza Ali was dead when the suit was filed and the seven defendants were sued as his legal representatives! and a decree was passed against them, their liability being limited to the assets of Raza Ali in their hands if any. Respondents 1 and 2 attached the decree obtained by respondent 3 in O.S. No. 50 of 1926 and brought to sale the properties which are the subject-matter of this appeal. During the course of the execution proceedings, defend...
Tag this Judgment!T. Syed FakruddIn Saib and ors. Vs. Katta Ramayya Setti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad299
Somayya, J.1. This second appeal raises an important question on the construction to be placed on the wording of Section 41, T. P. Act. The facts that led to this appeal are these.2. The appellants are defendants 8 to 11,13 and 14 who are the sons and daughters of one Ahmed Sahib. Respondents 1 to 5 are the representatives of Katta Subbayya the plaintiff in the suit. The other respondents are the heirs of one Bhandigi Sahib. Ahmed Sahib and Bhandigi Sahib were brothers. Bhandigi Sahib was a police head constable and had retired from service and settled in his native village. The other brother Ahmed Sahib was in service as a Sub-Inspector of Police and it appears that he sent a large sum of money to his brother Bhandigi Sahib. With the moneys so sent by Ahmed Sahib, Bhandigi Sahib purchased properties in his own name. The plaintiff Katta Subbayya took a simple mortgage from Bhandigi Sahib (Ex. B) on 6th August 1928. This was in order to pay off a debt due to one Mr. M. G. Rameswara Rao ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Naicker Vs. Manickka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad405
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioners seek to be brought on record as the legal representatives of the appellant in S. A. No. 309 of 1943. The original appellant who was the plaintiff filed the suit to recover the expenses incurred by him in prosecuting the defendants for an offence punishable under Section 500, Penal Code. The defendants were said to have sent a petition to the President District Board of Chingleput imputing bad character and dishonesty to the plaintiff, and he claimed in the suit not general damages, but only the money said to have been expended in connexion with the criminal case. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that though it was maintainable, it was barred by limitation. On appeal the learned District Judge of Chingleput found that the suit was not maintainable and that if it was maintainable it was barred by limitation. After the second appeal was filed the appellant died and the petitioners file this petition to be brought on record as his...
Tag this Judgment!Maruthappa Maistriar and ors. Vs. Soosai Anthonimuthu Mudaliar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad172
Somayya, J.1. The suit is upon a mortgage. The only question in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The mortgage was one directing the payment of the amount in instalments. On the point whether the right to sue for the whole amount accrued on the date of the first default there is no room for controversy. It has been decided by the Judicial Committee in Lasa Din v. Gulab Kunwar .that where the wording of the document is as in this case one giving an option to the mortgagee to insist upon the whole amount being paid in case of the default mentioned in the document, time does not begin to run immediately' on the default and that the mortgagee can waive the benefit which is reserved for him under the document. This position is not controverted but the appellant seeks to file a notice said to have been issued by the uncle of respondents 1 and 2 in which it is stated that there was a demand for the entire amount soon after the first default occurred. This notice ...
Tag this Judgment!J.D. Italia Vs. D. Cowasjee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad295
Leach, C.J.1. The appellant sued on the original side of this Court for a declaration that a partnership between him and the defendant was dissolved on 80th September 1988 and for an order directing that the accounts of the partnership be taken from 1st October 1937 to 30th September 1988. No oral evidence was given as the parties had agreed that the action should be tried on the correspondence and certain other documents. It is common ground that the partnership commenced before 23rd August 1937. The record does not disclose the exact date of the agreement; but this is not material. The partnership was formed for the purpose of acquiring licences for the carrying on of a retail business in toddy in shops in the City of Madras. Licences were obtained, but they were only issued in the name of the plaintiff. The defence was that as the licences stood in the name of the plaintiff alone, the partnership was illegal and therefore the suit was not maintainable. This plea was accepted by Kris...
Tag this Judgment!Kanduri Lakshmiah Chetty and anr. Vs. Adoni Electric Supply Co. Ltd. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad322
Leach, C.J.1. These three appeals arise out of different suits filed in the Court of the District Judge of Bellary. The cause of action was the same in each case and as the actions were tried together the trial Court dealt with them in one judgment. It will be convenient to adopt the same course here.2. We will first state the facts in Appeal No. 137 of 1942. The plaintiff is a limited liability company. It was registered on 3rd November 1932 with a nominal capital of Rs. 300,000 divided into 3000 shares of Rs. 100 each. The object for which the company was formed was the supply of electricity to the town of Adoni. The appellant signed the memorandum of association as a subscriber for 50 shares, but the articles of association do not state the date on which a subscriber has to make payment. In Alexander v. Automatic Telephone Co. (1900) 2 ch. D. 56 the Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of any special agreement or article requiring a subscriber of the memorandum of association o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopala Venkata Narasimha Vs. Venkatalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad372
Mockett, J.1. We will deal with these appeals in a common judgment, separating them however as convenient.2. A.A.O. Nos. 411 and 412 of 1942. - The appellant is. the decree-holder and the respondent is the judgment-debtor, defendant 24 in O.S. No. 86 of 1916, Sub-Judge's Court, Chittoor, which was a suit by a junior member of the Kalahasti Zamindari for maintenance against defendant 24. On 6th June 1918, there was a preliminary decree for Rs. 42,658-15-6 which was charged on the whole of the zamindari. In this appeal we are concerned with the sale of Peddakannali village, part of the zamindari. On 23rd November 1920, the final decree was passed. Appeals Nos. 58, 69 and 70 of 1919 were filed by various defendants against the preliminary decree. These appeals were dismissed on 3rd May 1927. E.P. No. 20 of 1930 was filed on 15th January 1930 and an order for sale of Peddakannali village was made on 28th March 1935. On 17th March 1934 one Srinivasa Ayyah was appointed receiver in a suit, O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »