Chennai Court August 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.
British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. by Local Agents, Madura Co. Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad60
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff, who is respondent 1 here, was hired with his boat by respondent 2 to carry iron bars to the 'S.S. Sorada' of the appellant's company. According to the rules of the harbor, the work of loading should cease at 5 P.M.; but the Courts below have found that the officers of the ship and respondent 2 were very slow and negligent in the loading of these iron bars into the ship, with the result that the work was not completed at 5 P.M. It has been found further that the plaintiff was anxious to return to the shore at 5 P.M., but that he was detained under threat that if he did not remain, he would not be given his wages. During the night, at about 10-30 P.M., an extremely heavy squall arose; and the master of the ship found it necessary for the safety of the ship to cast off the boat of the plaintiff and others. They were then still loaded with iron bars and sank almost immediately. The plaintiff claimed the value of his boat. The first Court gave a decree against d...
MoidIn Bacha Rowther and anr. Vs. I.S. Chidambaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad86
Wadsworth, J. 1. The appellants who are also the petitioners in the civil miscellaneous petitions, were indebted to the respondent under a promissory note of 1928. The respondent filed a suit and in February 1985 obtained an ex parte decree. He appealed against the decree seeking a charge in respect of the amount declared due. In that appeal the judgment-debtors were not served with notice although they were the sole respondents, the Court having apparently dispensed with the service of notice under the provisions of the proviso to Order 41, Rule 14, Civil P.C., read with Appellate Side Rules 12A(17). In our opinion when an appeal is filed and the only1 respondents to that appeal are persons who have allowed the proceedings in the trial Court to go on ex parte it is undesirable to apply the proviso to Rule 14 of Order 41, Civil P.C., without an attempt to serve at least one of those respondents. The appeal against the decree was, however, heard in the absence of the respondents thereto...
A. Govindaraju Mudaliar Vs. Chunduru Hanumantha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad7
ORDERHorwill, J.1. An application was presented by the petitioner for permission to sue in forma pauperis and was numbered as O.P. No. 47 of 1941 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tenali. After the preliminary enquiry as to pauperism, the application was allowed and the plaint numbered as O.S. No. 38 of 1942. Upon objection being taken by the defendant, the Court discovered that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaint was therefore returned for presentation to the proper Court. Some days later, in order to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif, the petitioner deleted one of his claims. It was re-presented as a plaint and re-numbered as O.S. No. 53 of 1943. The defendant then raised the objection that since the District Munsif was not competent to entertain the application to sue in forma pauperis, because the suit would have been beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the Court could not re-entertain the a...
Kolluri Venkataratnamma Vs. Maradugula Narasimha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad56
Horwill, J.1. S.A. No. 703 of 1943: The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for a declaration that a certain will was true, valid and binding on all parties concerned and for a partition of the one-fourth share of the testator that had fallen to the plaintiff as a result of the will. The first Court found that the will was not executed by the testator while in a sound disposing state of mind, though a question of jurisdiction was also raised, which was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The appellate Court held that the will was genuine. The question of jurisdiction seems not to have been argued in the lower appellate Court; but in this Court the decree of the lower appellate Court has been canvassed on two grounds, the first being that the finding of the lower appellate Court was not justified by the evidence; and the second being that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try this suit. The first point is a question of fact. It is argued that the conclusion is inconsis...
In Re: Ismail Abdulla Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad68
Leach, C.J. 1. The petitioner was charged before the First Class Bench of Magistrates, Cuddapah, Under Section 5 (1)(b), Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1918, read with Rule 40 (b) of the rules framed there under with having mixed 50 per cent, of mahua flower, coffee husk and cereal with coffee prepared by him. It was said that on the label on the packets which were seized by the Health Officer appear the words: 'Coffee powder 50 per cent., Indian Chicory 50 per cent.' It was argued that mahua flowers are known as Indian Chicory. As pointed out by the Sessions Judge on appeal, even if this be so we express no opinion on the point there was still adulteration because of the admixture of coffee husk and cereal. The petitioner was convicted by the Magistrate of the charge of selling adulterated coffee and the goods seized were ordered to be destroyed under the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act. The conviction was on appeal set aside by the Sessions Judge who however concurred ...
Merla Janikamma Vs. Sri Inuganti Venkata Rajagopala Chinnarao Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad62
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. This is an appeal brought by the plaintiff against a mortgage decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coconada on 10th December 1935 and amended by the same Court on 9th November, 1942 under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938. The mortgage bond on which the suit was based was executed by the respondent's father for a sum of Rs. 40,000 describing the properties charged as his self-acquired arid separate properties. Belying on this description, the appellant alleged in the plaint that the properties were the separate properties of the mortgagor, but as the respondent was claiming an interest therein as the undivided son of the mortgagor he was also imp leaded in the suit and a decsee for sale of the entire properties was sought on the footing that even if the properties were found to be the joint family properties of the respondent and his father, the latter having granted the mortgage for purposes binding on the responden...
M. Mahamood Mamuna Lebbai Vs. National Bank of India Ltd. Through Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad572
Somayya, J.1. In this ease the question is whether there is a contract excluding the applicability of Section 55, Clause 1 (g), T. P. Act. The appellant purchased the properties in question from the respondent and later on it was discovered that there was a charge on the property. Some amount was paid by the plaintiff towards the charge which had ripened into a decree and he filed the suit out of which the second appeal arises for recovery of the sum paid by him. The trial Court granted the decree but the appellate Court reversed it and hence the second appeal. The sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant is Ex. A dated 4th September 1937. The respondent bank had purchased this property in court auction held in execution of a mortgage decree in O.S. No. 27 of 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin against one Shanmugasundaram Pillai and others. The document, Ex. A, recites that the properties described in the schedule attached thereto were the properties of...
A.C.T.N. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. Meenakshiachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad32
Somayya, J.1. The only decision brought to my notice is that of the Judicial Committee in Vadivelu Mudaliar v. Peria Manicka Mudaliar A.I.R. 1920 P.C. 30. There, there was an agreement before the 'court sale by which A agreed to purchase at a court auction (to come off later) for and on behalf of B and then to convey the property to B. There was another agreement after the court sale executed by A and B1 reiterating the terms of the original agreement. The Judicial Committee pointed out that if the original agreement had stood alone, Section 66, Civil P.C., may be a bar, but that since there was another agreement after court sale, Section 66 did not apply. In the case before us, there was not merely an agreement to convey the property executed after the court sale, but there was an actual sale deed executed by the person who purchased the property in court auction conveying the property to the plaintiff. This case is directly covered by the observations of the Judicial Committee in Vad...
Madras Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. South Indian Match Factor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad30
Leach, C.J.1. On 16th February 1939, an order for the compulsory winding up of the South Indian Match Factory, Ltd., was passed in proceedings on the Original Side of this Court and one M. Ramachandra Rao, who was then an advocate of this Court, was appointed the Official Liquidator. The main assets consisted of the factory building and machinery. The Court directed the sale of these properties by private treaty and the Official Liquidator entered into negotiations with one Shamsuddin Rowther. In the month of January 1940, an agreement was entered into between the Official Liquidator and Shamsuddin Rowther for the sale of the properties, subject to the confirmation of the Court, for a sum of Rs. 5750 and Rs. 200 was paid as earnest money. This payment was made by a crossed cheque in favour of the Official Liquidator. Under Section 244A, Companies Act, the Official Liquidator was required to open an account with a bank and pay therein moneys received by him in the course of the liquidat...
M.M.P.L. Chokkalingam Chettiar Vs. M.L.R.M. Lakshmanan Chettiar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad1
King, J.1. The question involved in the determination of this appeal is the interpretation of Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The facts of the case are that respondent 1 obtained a decree in O.S. No. 115 of 1929 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah. That decree provided for the payment to him of a sum of Rs. 25,000 and gave him a charge upon the Peralam rice mills. Respondent 1 proceeded to execute the decree and on 12th April 1940 brought these mills to sale. They were purchased at the court auction by the decree-holder himself for Rs. 38,125 and it is common ground that this amount completely or almost completely satisfies the claim of respondent 1 for the money due to him under the decree. This sale was confirmed on 16th October 1940 and the confirmation of the sale was subsequently, upheld on appeal by the High Court. After the disposal of the appeal, respondent 1 filed an application under Order 21, Rule 95 for delivery of the property which he had purchased. The appell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »