Chennai Court November 1943 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.
Sri Kakulam Subrahmanyam and anr. Vs. Kurra Subba Rao, Minor by Maniky ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad337
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These second appeals have been placed before a Division Bench as they raise a question of some general importance as to the applicability of Section 53A, T. P. Act, to an agreement for sale of immovable property made by a guardian on behalf of his ward. The facts giving rise to the case are not now in dispute. On 29th November 193S the plaintiff's mother and guardian entered into an agreement to sell the suit lands to defendants 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the transferees) for discharging certain debts due by the deceased father of the plaintiff. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 17,200 out of which Rs. 16,000 was to be adjusted towards the debts due to the transferees themselves on promissory notes and Rs. 1200 was to be paid in discharge of a mortgage debt due to a third party. It is common ground that the transferees paid off this mortgage debt and were placed in possession of the properties in pursuance of the contract of sale, but the transfer h...
Abdula Saheb Vs. Guruvappa and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad387
Bell, J.1. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has conducted the case of his client with great ability and has said everything that could possibly be said in circumstances which, as I have already said in Appln. No. 2346 of 1943, were made extremely difficult for him by the way in which the defence was altered from time to time. I am afraid, however, that I have no alternative but to accept the submission of the defendants a submission of which little more than a hint was given to the plaintiff up to within a week of the trial. The point taken is that the contract on which the plaintiff sues was illegal ab initio, that therefore the -plaintiff cannot succeed and that his suit must be dismissed with costs. The words of Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp. 343, cited at p. 602 in Harry Parker Ltd. v. Mason (1940)2 K.B. 590, apply to this case:The objection that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant sounds at all times very ill in the mouth o...
S.P. Bhoominathan Chettiar Vs. K.S.N. Chari and Co., by Sole Proprieto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad321
Leach, C.J.1. The plaintiff is a Nattukottai Chetti carrying on a banking business at Devakottai. The defendant carries on business as a commission agent in Madras under the style of K. S. N. Chari & Co. On 13th December 1939 the plaintiff commenced dealing with the defendant in cotton futures and the dealings continued until 10th June 1940. During this time the plaintiff had entered into nine contracts with the defendant for the sale of Broach cotton for future delivery and ten contracts for the purchase from him of similar cotton. Cotton was never demanded or delivered. The plaintiff was in fact entirely ignorant of what was meant by Broach cotton. At the end of these transactions there was due by the defendant for differences a sum of Rs. 5076-7-1. The plaintiff had deposited with the defendant as cover for the due payment of differences, should he lose on any transaction, a total sum of Rs. 3000. On 26th March 1942 he filed this suit to recover from the defendant these two sums wit...
In Re: N. Ramaratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad302
King, J.1. On the night of 13th-l4th January last, an unsuccessful attempt was made to damage with gelignite the bridge carrying the South Indian Railway over the river Uppanar near Shiyali in the Tanjore district. Eight accused were tried in connexion with this event under the provisions of ordinance 2 of 1942 by the learned Special Judge for the Presidency Town of Madras at Chingleput. Of these accused, accused 3 was discharged and accused 4 and 5 acquitted. The remaining accused were convicted under various charges and have now appealed in exercise of the right of appeal granted by Ordinance 19 of 1943. Under the same Ordinance the learned Public Prosecutor has filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 459 praying for an enhancement of the sentences passed upon the appellants. That the attempt was made is not disputed. It was discovered on 14th January that a hole had been drilled into the central pier of the bridge at a point 2' 4' above the water level and 10' 9' below the level of the...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. C.V. Ramanujulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad169; (1943)2MLJ672
Horwill, J.1. The prosecution examined three witnesses, and on 10th April, 1942, the Prosecuting Inspector endorsed the charge-sheet with this statement 'P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (the numbers relating to the list of witnesses in the charge-sheet) are given up.' He then signed his name. The Magistrate at once framed a charge against the accused; but for one reason or another the trial proceeded no further. Before the stage had arrived for farther cross-examination, the Magistrate was transferred and the Magistrate whose judgment is now appealed against, assumed office. The accused applied for what is generally termed a de novo trial; and the three witnesses already examined were re-called and re-examined. After that had been done, the prosecution requested that one of the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet, No. 2, might be examined for the prosecution before the prosecution closed its case. The Magistrate refused to allow this witness to be examined, and passed the following order:Th...
In Re: Singaram Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad223
King, J.1. The three accused in this case have been convicted for the murder of one Rathnasami on the evening of 21st December last. The prosecution case is that they all attacked him, accused 1 cutting him with an aruval on various parts of the body, and the other two accused attacking him with sticks, in the course of a concerted assault. They are, therefore, all guilty of murder under the provisions of Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code. The deceased did not die until 12th January 1943. The cause of his death was septicaemia and that septicaemia was the direct result of some at least of the injuries. There can be no doubt, therefore, that death was brought about by the injuries which the deceased received.2. The first question which arises is whether the appellants were actually guilty of causing any injuries. On this point, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P. W's 1, 3 and 7 even though he is satisfied that P.W. 1 must have been pr...
Municipal Council Vs. Madras and Southern Maharattah Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad355
Somayya, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,706-15-0 on the footing that the defendant-appellant collected by way of property tax a sum far in excess of what was legitimately payable by the respondent. The appellant is the Municipal Council, Bezwada, and the respondent is the Madras and Sou. them Maharattah Railway Co. Ltd. Under the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act, the appellant Council levied a tax of Rs. 12,263-1-7 for each of the four half years of 1935-36 and 1936-37. The respondent paid the amount under protest and seeks to recover a major portion of the same on the ground that though the levy was otherwise proper, the District Collector of Kistna has fixed under Section 135, Clause (2), Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a sum of Rs. 7178-1-8 as the amount payable for two half years. The amount involved in the suit and the appeal is the difference between the amount collected by the ap...
Jashi Parvatavardhanamma Vs. Adusumalli Venkataramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad235
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by a creditor in insolvency against the order of the District Judge of Ellore refusing to set aside a mortgage deed executed by the insolvent and his sons so far as the document related to a transfer by the sons of the insolvent. Exhibit 11 is the mortgage deed executed by Somayya the insolvent and his sons Venkateswara Rao and Venkata Subrahmanyam represented by the father as guardian. The Official Receiver filed the petitions C. M. P. NO. 342 of 1938 under Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act, for setting aside that mortgage. The document was set aside only so far as it was executed by the father but so far as the execution of the document by the sons was concerned, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it could not be set aside as there was an attachment in respect of the sons' interest. The appellant has filed this appeal after obtaining leave of Court under Section 75 (3), Provincial Insolvency Act.2. When the appeal was taken up f...
In Re: S. Siluvai Antony Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad319
King, J.1. We do not propose in this case to say anything in detail about the evidence given against the appellants, two of whom have been sentenced to death and two to transportation for life in connexion with the murder of one Diravia Nadar on 26th February last. We note however from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly that the principal evidence against the accused consisted of the deposition of one Thomas alias Subramania Nadar before the committing Magistrate. This deposition was admitted as direct evidence at the sessions under the provisions of Section 33, Evidence Act. Section 33 provides that that can be done if the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable. In the present case, the decision of the learned Judge to admit this evi...
Panchayat Board, Tondi Through President, S.S.M. Syed Ibrahim Sahib Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad249
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the Panchayat Board of Tondi for revising the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Devakottai setting aside the conviction of the accused under Section 193, Madras Local Boards Act, in C. C. No. 75 of 1942 on the file of the Additional Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvadanai. The accused applied on 5th December 1941, to the Panchayat Board for a licence in which he stated that he proposed to instal and run a rice mill with a 24 H. P. engine driven by crude oil at the place mentioned in the application. On 26th December 1941, the Panchayat Board sent a letter to the accused saying that the locality referred to for the installation was not suitable as it would cause nuisance and inconvenience to the people and that therefore the licence applied for will not be granted. Subsequently on 10th August 1942, the accused sent a letter to the board stating that it was in continuation of his previous application and that he was sending a detailed plan ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »