Chennai Court April 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.
Kommana Rukminamma Vs. Talapanti Ramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad712; (1943)2MLJ189
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In this appeal, the Court is called upon to interpret Order 21, Rule 54(2) of the Code of Civil procedure. Sub-rule (1) states that where immovable property is attached the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge. Sub-rule (2) reads as follows:The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode, and a copy of the order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous part of the Court-house and also, where property is land paying revenue to the Government, in the office of the Collector of the District in which the land is situate.2. In this case several properties were attached by one order, but the order was posted on only one of them. The question is whether this constituted a valid attachment so far as ...
In Re: Kalappa Mandaya Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ280
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Negapatam, for having acquired more coins, especially small coins, than what was necessary for his trade under Rule 90(3) read with Rule 90(2)(d) of the Defence of India Rules. His house as well as his shop were searched. Coins of the value of only Rs. 46-3-4 (consisting of 3 one rupee, 8 half-rupee, 104 quarter rupee, 12 two anna, 97 one anna, 92 half anna, 169 quarter anna, and 25 one pie coins) were found in his shop. When his house was searched there were coins of the value of Rs. 547-7-3, consisting of 199 rupee, 230 half rupee, 868 quarter rupee, 2 two annas, 23 one anna, 799 quarter anna, and 438 one pie coins, etc. He was a maligai merchant, and both the Courts have found that he did not require change for more than about Rs. 100 at a time. It is urged for the petitioner that he was getting coins only during the course of his trade, that he was bound to receive them when tendered by his customer...
Jasho Prokash Mitter Vs. Botawala De Rander
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad657(1); (1943)2MLJ132
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Bell, J, directing the petitioner in a divorce suit to furnish security in the sum of Rs 1,000 for the costs of the co-respondent. The petitioner resides in Calcutta. The respondent and the co-respondent are now residing in Bombay. The suit has been instituted in this Court because the petitioner says that he and his wife last resided together in Madras. In making the order for costs the learned Judge said that he was not uninfluenced by the fact that the petitioner had deliberately sought the jurisdiction of this Court, knowing that all the evidence would have to come from Bombay or Calcutta and thereby deliberately increasing the costs of the parties involved.2. An order for security for costs can only be made in accordance with some established principle. If the petitioner is entitled to file his petition here the fact that he might have filed it in another High Court is no ground for requiring him to furnish secur...
Sundararajulu Pillai Vs. K.S. Dorai Rani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad716; (1943)2MLJ154
Horwill, J.1. The respondent obtained a decree for the return of a letter of authority, but the Court did not state, as it should have done under Order 20, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code the amount of money to be paid as an alternative if delivery could not be had. The petitioner, alleging that he was unable to comply with the decree because the letter was not in his possession, filed a suit for fixing the amount of money to be paid as an alternative. That suit was rightly dismissed. After that suit was dismissed, the respondent applied to execute his decree, whereup6n the petitioner asked the Executing Court to fix the amount to be paid by way of compensation as an alternative to the delivery of the document The District Munsiff fixed the amount at Rs 25, which was the sum thought in the suit to be appropriate. In appeal, the District Judge held that the application to fix compensation was premature and that it was only after the attachment order under Order 21, Rule 31 had been in for...
Cheralodiyil Usankutty Vs. Kunhipennu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad608; (1943)2MLJ170
Happell, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation made in Case No. 238 of 1941. The applicant in Case No. 238 was the widow of a man who was employed by the appellant as a quarryman in a laterite quarry and who was killed, it is not disputed, in the course of his employment. The learned Commissioner has awarded her a comdensation of Rs, 500. Substantially the only point that was in controversy before the Commissioner is the only point, which has been raised in this appeal, namely, whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act at the time of the accident. He was a workman if he was employed in a mine as defined in clause if) of Section 3 of the Indian Mines Act subject to the proviso to Clause (v) of Schedule II of the Workman's Compensation Act or in the making of any excavation as defined in Clause (xvi) of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act., It is admitted that more than 50 persons wer...
Rex Vs. Arumugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ297
ORDERKing, J.1. The accused in this case is charged with having committed the offence of grievous hurt under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code by stabbing one Ganesan on the night of the 17th November, 1942. Ganesan died as a result of the stab, and this is the third occasion on which the accused has appeared in the dock at the High Court Sessions. He was first charged with the murder of Ganesan at the first sessions of the present year before Bell, J., and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty by a majority of 6 to 3. The case was ordered to be retried upon the same charge of murder. At the conclusion of the second trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty of causing grievous hurt by 5 to 4. The learned Judge, who again was Bell, J., ordered that the accused be kept in custody and be retried at the next sessions and he added ' Having regard to the jury's verdict, he should be tried only under Section 326, having been acquitted under Section 302.2. A preliminary objection to t...
Mogulluri Vira Raghavayya Vs. Kovaluri Sita Ramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad57; (1943)2MLJ456
Shahabuddin, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the Small Cause Suit No. 208 of 1941 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada. That suit was based on a promissory note executed by the defendants on 23rd April, 1937, for a sum of Rs. 1, 000 in favour of the Vijavada National Bank,, Limited, Eezwada. This promissory note has been indorsed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner for consideration. On the same date there was with reference to this promissory note an agreement between the promisors and the promisee to the effect that the promisers should pay the amount of the promissory note Rs. 1,000 in twenty-five monthly instalments of Rs. 40 each each instalment being payable by the 20th of every month and that in default of paying any of the instalments the promisee, that is, the Bank should be at liberty to recover the whole amount due from the promisors without waiting for the future instalments. The instalments due up to 19th June, 1937, were paid but the instalment due on...
In Re: M. Abdul Latiff
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad589
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyer, J.1. This is a petition to revise the conviction and sentence passed by the Joint Magistrate of Coonoor in C.C. No. 328 of 1942 for an offence punishable under Section 266, Penal Code. The sentence imposed was a fine of Rs. 50. The charge was framed against M.A. Abdul Latiff & Co., of Coonoor market and was to the effect that the accused noted in column 2, namely, Abdul Lattiff & Co., was using false measures, namely, a brass half measure and another full iron measure seized by the Circle Inspector of Police from the shop on 29th September 1942, which were found to be false measures. Notice was issued to the company and one Mohamed Ibrahim appeared in person and pleaded not guilty. He it was that was also examined under Section 342, Criminal P.C. He was asked whether his shop was in possession of a brass measure and one full iron measure which were false measures. He replied that the measures were correct and that the measures in Court were seized from him.2. In ...
In Re: Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad737
ORDERKing, J.1. The accused in this case is charged with having committed the offence of grievous hurt under Section 326, Penal Code, by stabbing one Ganesan on the night of 17th November 1942. Ganesan died as a result of the stab, and this is the third occasion on which the accused has appeared in the dock at the High Court Sessions. He was first charged with the murder of Ganesan at the first sessions of the present year before Bell J., and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty by a majority of 6 to 8. The case was ordered to be retried upon the same charge of murder. At the conclusion of the second trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty of causing grievous hurt by 5 to 4. The learned Judge, who again was Bell J., ordered that the accused be kept in custody and be retried at the next sessions and he added, 'Having regard to the jury's verdict, he should be tried only under Section 326, having been acquitted under Section 302.'2. A preliminary objection to the maintainability...
Parasu Amritavalli Thayaramma (Died) and anr. Vs. Challuvu Annapoornam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad641; (1943)2MLJ110
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the assignee of the decree passed in O.S. No. 12 of 1931 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor in favour of one Alamelumangamma for costs. She was the defendant in the suit which was filed by five plaintiffs, one of whom was Padmavallithayaramma (the fifth plaintiff). The decree was, passed on the 10th September, 1932. A sum of Rs. 1,766-9-10 was the taxed costs which was directed to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants. E.P. No. 81 of 1935 was filed against the fifth plaintiff Padmavallithayaramma alone for the sale of her house No. 14816 in Chittoor Town. The house was attached on 12th June, 1936 and was advertised for sale on 9th March, 1937. In the meanwhile on 22nd February, 1937, Padmavallithayaramma died and her husband Namberumal Chetti, her daughter Vatsala and her father P. Narasimhalu Chetti were brought on record as her legal representatives. Subsequently the decree was transferred to the original appell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »