Chennai Court December 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.
R.T. Rangaswami Ayyangar Vs. Subbaraya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad255
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant on 13th January 1941 obtained an assignment of a decree in O.S. NO. 383 of 1935 for Rs. 885 passed against respondent 1. Respondent 1 in 1937 had obtained a decree in O.S. No. 491 of 1935 for a sum of Rupees 833 against the appellant. That decree was under attachment at the instance of a creditor of the appellant. On 20th January 1941 the appellant filed three execution applications. The first was the main execution petition No. 63 of 1941 in which he sought to execute the decree in O.S. No. 383 of 1935 as assignee. In E.A. No. 102 of 1941 the appellant applied to record part satisfaction of the decree in O.S. No. 383 by the adjustment of the decree in O.S. No. 491. In E.A. No. 100 of 1941 the appellant applied to the Court for entry of full satisfaction of the decree O.S. No. 491 against himself by reason of the adjustment. While those three matters were pending the respondent on 16th April 1941 filed an application for stay of the decree in O.S. No. 383 ...
Siva Subramania Chettiar, Minor by Natural Father and Guardian, Veerap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad293
Leach, C.J.1. The appellant, who is a minor, is the holder of a decree for mesne profits which was passed in favour of his adoptive father on 14th November 1923 in a suit for partition. By his next friend he presented various petitions for execution. The last petition was dismissed for default on 4th April 1941. On 18th April 1941 his next friend, who at that time was his natural father, his adoptive father being dead, applied for a review of the order of dismissal. The District Judge granted the application, not as one falling within Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C, but because he felt that the dismissal of the execution application would work great hardship, as it was too late to file a fresh one, and consequently it was, according to him, a case in which the Court should invoke the inherent powers recognized by Section 151. There were three judgment-debtors. Two of them filed C. M. A. No. 569 of 1942 and the third, C. M. A. No. 98 of 1943. These appeals were heard by Horwill J. who all...
Municipal Commissioner Vs. G. Thotappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad260
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. These are petitions filed by the Commissioner of Hospet Municipality against the order of the Joint Magistrate of Hospet setting aside the conviction and sentence of a fine of Rs. 25 imposed by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Hospet in C. C. Nos. 1624, 1648 and 1745 of 1942 for offences punishable under Sections 11 (2) and (3) and 14 (d), Madras Entertainments Tax Act of 1939. The accused in all these cases is the same, viz., Totappa, proprietor of Basaveswara Talkies. The charge in these three cases was that on 9th May 1942, 30th May 1942 and 6th June 1942 respectively the accused failed to give reasonable assistance to the supervisor employed under the municipality in the discharge of his duties under the Madras Entertainments Act. The supervisor in question, P.W. 1, in all these cases, was one of the seven clerks of the municipal office who had been deputed by the municipality to check whether the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder were being...
S. Venkataratnam Vs. Y. Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad394
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for settlement of accounts and for recovery of the plaintiff's one-fifth share. The appellant is defendant 1. He along with defendants 5 and 6, had obtained certain lands on lease from the Government on 11th September 1918 for a period of 25 years for the purpose of manufacturing salt. Subsequently, on 17th November 1918, there was an agreement between the plaintiff in the suit and defendant 1 under which it was agreed that the plaintiff should have one-fifth share out of the one-third share which defendant 1 had in the business, and subject to the terms of the lease deed and the conditions which the Government and its officers might lay. In accordance with the said agreement defendant 1 agreed that the profits and losses will be borne in the shares as stated above. Subsequently some of the lands demised under Ex. 1 were not suitable for the purpose for which the lease was taken and hence there was a subsequent lease under Ex. 2 f...
Udayammai Achi and anr. Vs. Umayal Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad289
Leach, C.J.1. These appeals raise the question which was left open by the Privy Council in Ganesh Rao v. Tuljaram Rao (1913) 36 Mad. 295, namely how far the act of a managing member of an undivided Hindu family may affect a party to a suit represented by another person as his next friend or guardian ad litem.2. A Nattukottai Chettiar named Udayappa Chettiar had three sons, Raman, Kasi Viswanathan and Chellappa. Raman married Alagamma Achi, the appellant in Appeal No. 260 of 1942. He predeceased his father. Kasi Viswanathan married Umayal Achi, respondent 1 in Appeal No. 259 of 1942 and the only respondent in Appeal No. 260 of 1942. Chellappa married one Unnamalai Achi. He became of unsound mind and was represented in certain execution proceedings to which reference will be made in a moment by Unnamalai Achi as his guardian ad litem. On Umayal Achi's marriage with Kasi Viswanathan, her stridhanam was invested in her father-in-law's firm. In O.S. No. 1693 of 1931 of the Chief Court of Pu...
Kothandarama Ayyar and anr. Vs. Swaminatha Sastrial
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad363
ORDERByers, J.1. The short point which arises for decision in this revision petition is whether an application under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P. C, by the son of a deceased decree-holder to be brought on record and for permission to execute the decree was an application 'in accordance with law to a proper Court for execution' within the meaning of Clause (5) of Article 182, Limitation Act.2. The facts of the case, in so far as they are necessary, are that a decree had been transferred by the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam to the District Munsif's Court of Kumbakonam for execution, and the application by the deceased decree-holder's son to be brought on record was filed on the last day of limitation calculated from the date of the final order on the previous execution application. The application under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code was dismissed on the ground that it was not presented to the proper Court, and it was eventually ordered by the Subordinate Judge who had passed the decree ...
K.B. Prabhu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad369
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of South Malabar in Cri. App. No. 24 of 1943 confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Malabar on the petitioner in C.C. No. 44 of 1942 on his file for an offence punishable under Section 232A, Companies Act, the sentence was a fine of Rs. 51. The petitioner happened to be Managing Director of K. B. Prabhu & Co. He drew three sums of money on three different dates for paying instalments due for a motor car purchased by him and he was prosecuted for it as the payment of the money was not one of the purposes mentioned in the articles of association and he was convicted. Prior to then, he was prosecuted in respect of these very items of payments and also in respect of other items for the offence of criminal breach of trust, but was acquitted. It is contended for the petitioner that the acquittal in the previous case which was in respect of these very it...
Kalepalli Venkata Rao Vs. Kalepalli Padmavalli Tayaramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad324
Mockett, J.1. One Nagabhushanam Garu had three sons. We are concerned in this appeal with two of them : the husband of the respondent and his brother, the appellant. The respondent's husband having died, there was a reference made to arbitration to which the widow and her brother-in-law were parties. Under that reference two members of the Bar were appointed as arbitrators and it was stated in that reference that according to the will left by her husband the plaintiff had acquired a right to his entire properties and that on the strength of the will and on the strength of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act she was entitled to have a partition effected in respect of the entire properties, balance of goods and other assets of the joint family. Accordingly the task of the arbitrators was, as set out in para. 6, to divide the entire property and the debts mentioned in the schedule according to their good, middling and bad qualities. At one stage a criticism was made that no schedule ...
In Re: Subban Samban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad391
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The main point urged before me in this petition is that even if the accusation is false the petitioner cannot be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 211, Penal Code, as all that he had done in this case was to send a report to his official superior in the discharge of his duties and that he had not sent it with intent to set the criminal law in motion. The petitioner was a gangman employed in the South Indian Railway Company. On the date of occurrence when he was returning from Mettur he noticed a person removing two keys on the railway line. He caught hold of him but he ran away. He picked the two keys and handed it over to the station master of Ambathuraiand gave a report, Ex. G. That it was done only for the purpose of giving information as regards the state of the railway line is clear from the last sentence in that report which is as follows : 'There is no obstruction whatever in the way of the train running along the lines.' It is the dut...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Balla Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad448
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the Crown to revise the sentence imposed by the Sub-Magistrate of Razole on accused 1 in C. C. No. 230 of 1943.2. The accused in the case was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 379, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 months for the offence punishable under Section 379, Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 with rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 months in default for that punishable under Section 448, Penal Code. The imprisonments were directed to run concurrently. Section 35, Criminal P. C, deals only with cases of substantial punishments by imprisonments for distinct offences in the same case. It is only in such cases that provision is made ill that section for directing the sentences of imprisonments to run concurrently. Section 398 of the Code deals with cases of sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. It directs the sentence to run consecutively and not concurrently. S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »