Chennai Court September 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.
The Karnataka Bank Limited, by Its Secretary, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad95; (1943)2MLJ489
Somayya, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, a company can refer any dispute between it and another person to arbitration only in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act.2. The facts that led to this dispute may be briefly stated The appellant is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 63 of 1936 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of South Kanara. The lower Court dismissed the appellant's application for executing the decree passed in the suit holding that the decree was a nullity and therefore not executable. The decree-holder (appellant) is the Karnataka Bank, Limited. There were disputes between the bank and the respondents and the matter was referred to the arbitration of one K.P. Vasudeva Rao and the arbitrator decided that the plaintiff should get a sum of Rs. 18,477 from the respondents, The award was put into Court under paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code and the pra...
Nachimuthu Chetty Vs. Palani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad149; (1943)2MLJ596
Somayya, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an order passed in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by the appellant in O.S. No. 195 of 1937 against the respondent Palani Ammal. The appellant sought to execute the mortgage decree in E.P.R. No. 739 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Erode. Thereupon the respondent Palani Ammal filed C.M.P. No. 1521 of 1941 praying that the entire amount of the decree in O.S. No. 195 of 1937 in which she was the judgment-debtor might be set off against a larger sum which was decreed to her in O.S. No. 136 of 1938. The application was allowed by both the lower Courts and hence this appeal.2. Palani Ammal obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 136 of 1938 (to be more accurate the decree in her suit was passed by the High Court in S.A. No. 431 of 1940) and the decree that was passed in her favour was for a sum of Rs. 497-15-0. The mortgage decree which the appellant obtained against the respondent was., for a sum o...
Mahaboob Ali Saheb and anr. Vs. Khudratulla and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ630
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dismissing an application under the rules framed under Madras Act IV of 1938, to determine the amount of the debt. The application was dismissed on the ground that the debt was not one amenable to the processes of the Act. We have held in such cases that no appeal lay under the rules. The amendment introduced by the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Amendment Act of 1943, substantially repeats the provisioions of Rule 9 of the rules except that an appeal is allowed not only from an order declaring the amount due to the creditor, but also from an order declaring the debt to has been discharged. No right of appeal is however given when an application for a declaration.is dismissed on the ground that the debtor is not an agriculturist or the debt is not one which can be scaled down under the Act. An objection was taken by Mr. Rajah Ayyar on behalf of the respondents that there are no grounds for revision in this case. As we a...
Chokkalingam Chettiar Vs. in Re: the Nagarathar National Bank (In Liqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad87; (1943)2MLJ499
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the ex parte order of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura on 22nd April, 1943, read with an order dated 16th July, 1943, that the appellant and other directors of the Nagarathar National Bank, Limited in liquidation should be examined on 5th August, 1943.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. Although it is not quite clear from Section 202 of the Companies Act that an order. such as this is contemplated under that section, its terms are very wide; and Sircar and Sen in their work on ' The Companies Act ' (at page 541) give an order, directing public examination of directors as one of the orders which are appealable. We are not prepared to say that Section 202 is not wide enough to cover the order now under appeal.3. One of the complaints of the appellant is that this order was passed ex parte; but there does not appear to be anything in the rules which requires notice of applications under Section 196 of the Act to be g...
In Re: Abdul Azeez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad59; (1943)2MLJ447
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a cart which has been directed to be confiscated by the order of the Magistrate (the Fourth Presidency Magistrate) in C.G. No. 1305 of 1943. The accused in this case was charged under Section 65 of the City Police Act in connection with some hides which he was found carrying in a cart. It was suspected that the hides were either stolen property or property fraudulently obtained and since he did not explain how he came to be in possession of them he was convicted under Section 65 of the City Police Act. While convicting him the cart as well as the hides were directed to be confiscated. He was charged only in respect of the hides and not in respect of the cart, but all the same the Magistrate has directed the confiscation of the cart as well. The petitioner's case is that the cart belongs to him and that he hired it to the accused and therefore the order of confiscation will not be binding on him and wants the cart to b...
In Re: Ar. Al. Sv. Sevugan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad56; (1943)2MLJ377
ORDER1. We are satisfied that the original certificate has been lost, and the applicant is entitled to a duplicate; otherwise the previous order would have been in vain. There are of course no statutory rules governing this matter. We are only acting in the exercise of our inherent jurisdiction to do justice. The only question is as to the form of the order to be made. It has been brought to our notice that in C.M.P. No. 1218 of 1943 which was filed for the issue of a duplicate certificate under circumstances like those in the present case, Kuppuswami Ayyar, J., did not issue a duplicate certificate but only issued a certificate to the effect that a refund of a particular sum was ordered on a previous petition and that the refund certificate was issued by the High Court on a particular date.2. We have considered the matter and we think that the proper order to make when the Court is satisfied that the original certificate is lost is to issue a duplicate certificate and to state therein...
Adhilakshmi Ammal Vs. Srinivasa Goundan Alias Krishna Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad193
Horwill, J.1. The execution petition out of which this second appeal arises was marked as E.P. No. 728 of 1940 and was filed on 25th June 1940. The preceding execution petition on which a final order was passed was E.P. No. 270 of 1937, which was dismissed on 25th June 1937. That application was admittedly out of time; but the question is whether the respondent, judgment-debtor 2, is entitled to raise that plea in this application in view of the fact that he did not raise it in E.P. No. 270 of 1937. The first Court held that in accordance with the principle of constructive res judicata, he was precluded from raising that objection in the present execution proceeding. In appeal, the present respondent put forward two reasons why he was not estopped from raising this objection. One was that he was not properly served in that suit, and so had no opportunity of raising the objection; and, secondly, that as that petition was dismissed shortly after the date fixed for his appearance, there w...
In Re: R. Velayudham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ429
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner has been prosecuted for having disobeyed an order of the Tinnevelly Road Traffic Board prohibiting the owners of buses from changing tyres or tubes in contravention of the order passed by that Board on the 3rd, December, 1942. That order was passed in exercise of the power conferred under the Defence of India Rules and Defence of India Act. It? was urged for the petitioner that the Provincial Government had no power to delegate its powers to the Road Traffic Boards and that even the Provincial Government itself has no power to make such a rule. A preliminary objection to that effect was raised and disallowed by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Tinnevelly. It is to revise that order this petition has been filed.2. Under Section 2 of the Defence of India Act the Central Government could make rules and also confer powers on the Provincial Governments. Under Rule 89(2)(1) framed under the Defence of India Act,The Central Government or the ...
In Re: Singara Babu Alias Babu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad445
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 448, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30. The evidence disclosed that he entered into the shop of P.W. 1 for the purpose of seizing the measures of the trader P.W. 1 because he suspected that he was having false measures. It cannot therefore be said that when he entered the shop he entered there with intent to commit any offence. If a person suspects that a trader, of whom he is a customer, is having false measures he is entitled to get in and see whether he has Correct measures or not and that is all that the petitioner is said to have done. It would not therefore amount to criminal trespass.2. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. The fine if already collected will be refunded....
In Re: Sarapalli Chenchu Raghavalu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad41; (1943)2MLJ378
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner in all these petitions is the same person and he has been convicted for offences punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules read with Clause (3) of the Food Grains Control Order and condition No. 6 embodied in the licence granted to him. He is a wholesale dealer in rice in George Town and holds a licence under the Food Grains Control Order. He was tried along with his son, the second accused, and the charge was that he sold rice to various persons without showing in the receipts or in the duplicates maintained by him the name, address and the licence number of the purchaser. The seven cases out of which these revision petitions arise are all cases' in which he had been charged with similar offences and in all these cases he pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. It is urged before me that all that he admitted was that he did not note in the receipts the names, addresses and th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »