Chennai Court July 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.
Vushthepalle Swami Setti Vs. Dandu Lakshmireddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad499
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the appellant, a mortgagee, praying the Court to scale down the debt due to the appellant by the respondents under a mortgage deed, Ex. P-l. The application is filed under the rules framed under Madras Act 4 of 1938. The history of the transaction may be briefly summarised. in 1927, the respondents executed a promissory note for Rs. 5000 in favour of the appellant and one Ranga Reddy. It appears that the appellant and Ranga Reddy were at that time members of an unregistered partnership. In 1932, after payments had been made towards this promissory note, there was a renewal in favour of the same parties for a sum of Rs. 4385. Apparently there was a dissolution of partnership or an agreement to divide the joint assets between the appellant and Ranga Reddy , as a result of which this debt fell to the share of the appellant. As a consequence of this arrangement, the respondents on 12th April 1931 executed a mortgage in favour of t...
Gogineni Bapayya Vs. Gogineni Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad39
Leach, C.J. 1. The appellant filed his suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Repalle for a partition of moveable property belonging to the joint family of which he was a member. The defendants were his four brothers. The plaintiff alleged that a partition of the immovable properties had already taken place and all that remained to be done was to divide the movables. The suit was resisted by defendant 1, who was supported by defendant 3. Defendant 2 supported the plaintiff. Defendant 4 allowed the suit to proceed ex parte. Defendant 1 pleaded that the suit was bad because the plaintiff did not ask for full partition. According to defendant 1, all the immovable, properties had not all been divided and the plaintiff was only seeking partition of some of the moveable properties. The District Munsif held that there had been a complete partition with regard to the immoveable properties and then proceeded to take the evidence with regard to the moveable properties. At the end of the cas...
P.K. Chinnaswami Vs. C. Doctor and Co., by Managing Proprietor Vadilal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad546
Leach, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is a commission agent. In 1937 and 1938 the defendants were acting as the agents of a German firm, named Rich Hartmann, whose business was the manufacture of cotton machinery at Chemnitz in Germany. The defendants employed the plaintiff to introduce them to the management of the Kumaran Mills, Ltd., a company carrying on business at Coimbatore. As the result of the plaintiff's introduction to the management of the Kumaran Mills, Ltd., a contract was entered into under which the firm of Rich Hartmann were to sell and the Kumaran Mills, Ltd., were to buy two sets of cotton spinning machinery at the price of 24,400 packed and delivered f. o. b. Hamburg. The contract further provided that confirmation should be obtained from the manufacturers on which event the buyers were to pay to the defendants Rs. 25,000 and the balance of the 24,400 against delivery of the shipping documents. On the same day (80th November 1987) the defendants' manager wrote to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›