Chennai Court January 1944 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.
W. Srinivasavaradachariar, His Son and Legal Representative, W. Krishn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad330
Leach, C.J.1. The appellant's father sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput to recover the sum of Rs. 2,30,000, the amount of the damages which he alleged he had suffered as a result of respondent l's default in fulfilling his obligations under a contract for the sale of land, and in the alternative, for the recovery of Rs. 27,500 on the basis that there had been failure of consideration to this extent. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit which was continued by the appellant. The Subordinate Judge held that defendant 1 was in default and that a suit in damages lay, but he found that no loss had in fact been sustained by the plain-tiff. He rejected in its entirety the alternative claim. On 14th December 1923 the plaintiff agreed to sell for the sum of Rs. 82,750 his rights in the shrotriem villages of Koduvur and Seekanankuppam. The plaintiff's son was a party to the agreement. The agreement provided that the purchaser should pay to the vendor by 14th Ja...
R. Chennayya Vs. T. Janikamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad415
Horwill, J.1. It has been found by the Courts below that the appellants and others entered into a contract under which each was to advance a certain sum of money to defendant 1, who was to bid at an abkari auction sale to be held on that day, and as consideration for the money paid by them, they were to share in the business which defendant 1 was to bid for. Defendant 1 did bid, and he conducted the business and - it is said - made profits. The plaintiffs brought the present suits for the dissolution of the partnership and accounts. Both the Courts below held that the contract was illegal and could not be sued on. The first Court, however, granted them relief under Section 65, Contract Act. The appellate Court dismissed the suits in toto. It is argued here that where the contract is entered into before the auction, it is not a contract which infringes the provisions of the Abkari Act and can therefore be sued on. It is only contracts entered into after the auction takes place, it is co...
In Re: Mathayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad85
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. Since the case has been taken on file and is being tried, there ought to be no objection to the granting of a copy of a statement recorded Under Section 164, Criminal P.C., as it would be necessary for the cross-examination of the witness. As a matter of fact, it will be more convenient to the Court itself to grant such copies in advance as it may avoid the necessity for an adjournment on the ground that the cross-examining counsel is not posted with the facts stated in the statement recorded Under Section 164, Criminal P.C. The lower Court is therefore directed to furnish a copy to the petitioner in time to enable him to cross-examine the witness. The decision in Emperor v. Muthiah Swamiar (1907) 30 Mad. 466 has no application to the facts of this case. All that was stated there is that a person under remand is not entitled to a copy before the commencement of the preliminary enquiry. In this case the preliminary enquiry has commenced and witnesses have bee...
E.S. Kasim Marakkayar and ors. Vs. P.R.M.K. Muhammad Abdul Rahiman Mar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad273
Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether a compromise decree which operates as a lease requires registration.2. In O.S. No. 25 of 1929 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad 21 fishermen sued for a declaration that they were entitled by custom to a right of fishing and to use certain parts of the foreshore at Mantapam for the purposes of drying, curing, storing and selling the fish caught, beaching and storing their fishing canoes and boats, and hauling and drying their fishing nets. They also asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with these operations. The suit was compromised and on 17th November 1930, a decree was passed in the terms agreed upon. There is no doubt that the decree was intended to operate as a lease. The word 'lease' was used in the decree itself and the payments which the plaintiff's were to make to the defendant were referred to as 'rent.' The plaintiffs were to enjoy the rights claimed by them for a period of 21 ye...
K.S. Yelumalai Chetty and anr. Vs. Natesachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad310
Leach, C.J.1. This is a suit by the reversioners to the estate of one Arcot Annamalai Chetti who died on 2nd December 1880, for the recovery of the properties left by him, all of which were in the hands of alienees at the date of the institution of the suit. The following geneological tree will help in the appreciation of the facts:Unnamalai Ammal=ARCOT ANNAMALAI CHETTI=Amirthammal First wife (died 2-12-1880) Second wife(predeceased her husband) (died 2-1-1901) | |--------------------------------------- || | | |Periathayammal Chinnathai Ammal Ratnammal Swarnammal(married to K. (married to K. (married to Nama- (married to KuppuSunder Chetti) Sunder Chetti) sivaya Chetty) Chetti died (died 4-4-'38) (died 1899 or 1900) (died 1937). before 1901)| | || | Loganathan (died in 1915)| |-------------------------------------------------||------------------------------------------------------------- || | | | |Murugesam Elumalai (1st Plff.) Veeraraghavan alias Dhanammal |(died before 1902) (born 10...
Catholic Bank Ltd., Mangalore by Secretary C.V.N. Pais Vs. F.P.S. Albu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad308
Leach, C.J.1. The question referred is whether Section 152, Companies Act, 1913, before its amendment by the Arbitration Act, 1940, had the effect of confining an arbitration in which a limited liability company was concerned to an arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1899, or whether the section left a company free to , follow any of the courses contemplated by the Civil Procedure Code as it stood before 1940. Before its repeal Sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the Code made this provision of law:Save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Arbitration Act, 1899, or by any other law for the time being in force, all references to arbitration whether by an order in a suit or otherwise, and all proceedings thereunder, shall be governed by the provisions contained in Schedule 2.Schedule 2 provided for an order of reference to arbitration being made in a suit, for an order of reference being passed without any suit being filed and for the case where an arbitration had taken place withou...
Fazal Ellahi Vs. Ram Mohan and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad403
Somayya, J.1. The suit is for recovery of a sum of money being the balance of purchase money due in respect of goods sold by the plaintiff to defendant 1 firm. Defendant 1 firm executed a deed of trust for the benefit of its creditors constituting defendants 2 and 3, as the trustees. Defendant 1 is ex parte. Defendants 2 and 3 do not dispute the amount claimed but deny the plaintiff's claim to recover the suit amount by way of a first charge over the assets in their hands. The plaintiff claims a first charge under these circumstances. The contract under which the goods (hides and skins) were sold to defendant 1 is not disputed. The plaintiff who is a merchant carrying on business at Calcutta despatched goods by train. The railway receipts were sent to the National Bank of India, Calcutta with instructions to hand them over to defendant 1 at Madras through the local branch of the National Bank of India on defendant 1 accepting a bill of exchange drawn by the plaintiff on defendant 1 for...
B. Mahalakshmamma Vs. C.K. Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad430
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to excuse the delay in presenting the appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 44 of 1942 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The judgment was pronounced on 17th March 1943. The very next day a copy application was made. Stamp and printing charges were called for on 3rd April 1943, and the stamp papers were filed on 5th April 1943. The printing charges had to be deposited on 10th April. 11th April was a Sunday and therefore on 12th April a petition had to be filed for extending the time because the office insisted on such a petition. Notice had to go and the petition was finally ordered on 15th July 1943. The charges were paid on the same day and copy obtained on 5th August 1943. This appeal was filed on 14th August 1943.2. If the time taken for obtaining copy of judgment is taken into consideration the appeal is in time. It is contended for the respondents that under Section 12 (2), Limitation Act, it is only the time taken for obta...
Somasundaram Vs. Kannammai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad392
Mockett, J.1. It is unnecessary to set out the history of the suits in which the appellant was appointed as a receiver. It is enough to say that he was appointed receiver in two suits, O.S. No. 217 of 1934 of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Devakottai and O.S. No. 172 of 1936, later O.S. No. 13 of 1939 of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Sivaganga. In O.S. No. 13 of 1939 certain charges were made against the receiver (appellant) which were withdrawn and he obtained his discharge. He has not obtained his discharge in O.S. No. 217 of 1934. The present I.. A. No. 641 of 1942 was an application by the respondents under Order 40, Rules 3 and 4 and Section 151, Civil P. C. Order 40, Rule 3 is as follows : 'Every receiver so appointed shall . . . . (b) submit his accounts at such periods and in such form as the Court directs; . . . (d) be responsible for any loss occasioned to the property by his wilful default or gross negligence.' We are more concerned with Rule 4, which says: '(1) If a re...
M.P. Nayagam Vs. A.R. Krishnaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad367
Leach, C.J.1. The appellant engaged the respondent, who is an advocate of this Court, to appear for him in an application for the winding up of a company registered under the Companies Act. An order for winding up was passed and the Official Receiver who functions as the Official Liquidator was, as required by law, called upon to settle a list of creditors. The appellant is a creditor of the company and in the proceedings before the Official Liquidator the respondent appeared on behalf of the appellant. A dispute arose with regard to the fees which the respondent claimed for this work. Thereupon he applied to the Master for his bill of costs to be taxed under Order 5, Rule 20, Original Side Rules. The learned Master held that that rule did not apply, because in his opinion the proceedings before the Official Liquidator were not proceedings in which a party or an advocate could apply for taxation. Accordingly he dismissed the application. On appeal, the order of the Master was reversed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »