Chennai Court December 1945 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.
M. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. Narayanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad331; (1946)1MLJ179
Bell, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has said everything that he can say on behalf of his client, but I am satisfied that this is not a case in which I should interfere with the order of the lower Court.2. The petition arises out of an application by the defendant in a suit under Order 26, Rules 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 151 for the issue of a commission to examine a witness in Madras. The suit was filed in the District Munsiff's Court, Devakottah, on a promissory note which had been executed by the defendant and had been endorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant apparently urged that the endorsement in some way or another was not valid and in support of this contention he desired to adduce the evidence of an advocate who has ceased to practice in that Court and is at present employed in Madras. He says that this gentleman was appearing in Court as an advocate in another case, in which the defendant's wife was the plaintiff and in which the endorser of...
Yuvarajah of Pithapuram and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1945
Reported in: [1946]14ITR92(Mad)
The assessees are the sons of the Maharajah of Pithapuram, the proprietor of the zamindari of Pithapur which was permanently settled under the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulation (Madras Regulation XXV of 1802). They are the joint proprietors of an estate settled upon them by their father. The estate which formed part of the zamindari of Pithapur includes certain forests from which the assessee derive the income by the sale of wood, bark, leaves, other usufruct of trees, minor forest produce, and licence fees. They supplement this income by the sale of trees in non-forest areas of the estate held by them. It is admitted that the trees in the forest and non-forest areas have grown wild and that agricultural operations are not carried on in any of the areas. For the year of the account 1941-42, the income from these sources amounted to Rs. 7,612 and the assessees were taxed on this sum for the year 1942-43. They maintained that they were exempt from taxation for two reasons. In the fi...
Narahari Ramanamma Vs. the Official Receiver of Kistna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad500; (1946)2MLJ105
Rajamannar, J.1. This appeal arises in the insolvency of one G. Venkatasubba Rao who was adjudged insolvent on 5th January, 1938, in I.P. No. 22 of 1934 on the file of the District Court, Kistna. The appellant is one of the creditors and respondents 2 and 3 are two of the other creditors while the first respondent is the Official Receiver, Kistna. The appellant is the holder of a decree against the insolvent in O.S. No. 466 of 1934 (District Munsiff's Court, Masulipatam). Evidently in pursuance of a notification in the Gazette on 27th April, 1943, calling for proof of debts by the creditors of the insolvent, the appellant filed an affidavit before the Official Receiver on 15th June, 1943, in which he set out that he had obtained a decree in the suit abovementioned on 9th September, 1935, and that a sum of Rs. 2,346-1-6 was due to him up to the 5th January, 1938. A copy of the decree was not, however, filed along with the affidavit. On 6th September, 1943, this affidavit was returned to...
Rathnasabapathi Ayyar Vs. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ193
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The question involved is one of interpretation of Section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. The section reads as follows:When an application has beep made to a Board under Section 4, any suit or other proceeding then pending before a Civil Court in respect of any debt for the settlement of which application has been made shall not be proceeded with until the Board has dismissed the application.The appellant says that the section means that a Court which proceeds to order the sale of the property in execution of a decree when an application has previously been made to a Debt Conciliation Board under Section 4 of the Act and is still pending acts without jurisdiction and its order can be ignored.2. In O.S. No. 112 of 1936 of the Court of the District Munsiff of Tiruvarur the second, third and fourth respondents obtained a mortgage decree against the appellant. The decree was made final,...
V. Kunhikrishna Reddi Vs. Ramaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ274
Koman, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 328 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Trivellore. The suit was dismissed on the 25th September, 1944, for default of the appearance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff through his vakil Mr. M.S. Parthasarathi Aiyangar filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the 24th October, 1944, within time, to have the suit restored to file; but, in doing so, the vakalat on behalf of the vakil I was defective. In the body of the vakalat the name of Mr. T.E. Raghavachari was mentioned but his name was not struck off and Mr. Parthasarathi Aiyangar | entered; but Mr. Parthasarathi Aiyangar had endorsed on the vakalat accepting the same. The Court returned the vakalat and the petition on the 31st October, 1944, as the vakalat was defective and four days time was given for rectification. This was complied with and the petition and the vakalat were re-presented to Court on the 4th November. The learned ...
Rathnasabapathi Ayyer Vs. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad285
Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter's Patent. The question involved is one of interpretation of Section 25, Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. The section reads as follows:When an application has been made to a Board under Section 4, any Suit or other proceeding then pending before a Civil Court in respect of any debt for the settlement of which application has been made shall not be proceeded with until the Board has dismissed the application.2. The appellant says that the section means that a Court which proceeds to order the sale of the property in execution of a decree when an application has previously been made to a Debt Conciliation Board under Section 4 of the Act and is still pending acts without jurisdiction and its order can be ignored. In O.S. No. 112 of 1936 of the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruvarur respondents 2, 3 and 4 obtained a mortgage decree against the appellant. The decree was made final, whereupon the decree, holders proceeded in...
V. Muni Krishna Reddi Vs. Ramaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad482
ORDERKoman, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 828 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Trivellore. The suit was dismissed on 25th September 1944 for default of the appearance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff through his vakil Mr. M.S. Parthasarathi Aiyangar filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C., on 24th October 1944, within time, to have the suit restored to file; but in doing so, the vakalat on behalf of the vakil was defective. In the body of the vakalat, the name of Mr. T.E. Raghavachari was mentioned, but his name was not struck off and Mr. Parthasarathi Aiyangar entered; but Mr. Parthasarathi Aiyangar had endorsed on the vakalat accepting the same. The Court returned the vakalat and the petition on 81st October 1944 as the vakalat was defective and four days time was given for rectification. This was complied with and the petition and the vakalat were re-presented to Court on 4th November. The learned District Munsif dismissed the petition...
Ragi Durgamba and anr. Vs. Sri Lakshminarasimhaswamy Rice Factory, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad299; (1946)1MLJ107
Byers, J.1. The only point which has been argued in this second appeal relates to the direction of the lower appellate Court that the sale under Section 6 of the Partition Act, 1893, is to be open to the public. It is contended that the right to bid should be limited to the co-sharers and in support of the argument reliance is placed on two decisions. The first is Debendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. Hari Das Bhattacharjee 15 C.W.N. 552 where there is an observation regarding a sale of the property in that case amongst co-sharers; but it is clear from the context that what the learned Judges had in mirid was a sale under Section 3(2) of the Partition Act. The decision is not an authority for the view that a sale under Section 6 shall not be open to the public. The other case is Hari Charan v. Fakir Chandra 40 C.W.N. 955 but this case is not in point as it relates only to the procedure to be followed at a sale under Section 3, Clause (2) of the Act. The wording of clauses (2) and (3) of Secti...
In Re: Devata Talipulamma Alias Mahalakshmamma by Her Husband and Gene ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad257; (1946)1MLJ103
ORDERKuppuswami, Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1239 of 1945 on the file of this Court for directing a refund of the court-fees paid by him in the said civil revision petition. He had filed this revision against the order passed in O.S.No. 226 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Peddapuram. His contention is that he was recognised as a pauper and therefore he is entitled to file the revision petition without paying the necessary court-fees. The petition was returned to him for paying necessary court-fees and he would not pay the same. The matter was posted before the Master and he passed the following order on the 22nd August, 1945:The petitioner is called. He is absent. The appeal examiner's view is correct. Deficit court-fee will be paid in two weeks.Under Section 5 of the Court-Fees Act the decision of the Taxing Officer is final but it is urged that it was only an ex parte order and therefore a nullity. But this is not a case in whic...
Venkataraya Goundan Vs. Mallappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad348; (1946)1MLJ163
Koman, J.1. The appellant filed O.P. No. 14 of 1923 on 29th June, 1923, as pauper. The petition was subsequently registered as O.S. No. 217 of 1923. The appellant was only two years old at that time and was represented by his next friend Arunachala Goundan, the brother of the appellant's grandfather. The preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 7th October, 1924, in which the plaintiff was declared entitled to one-sixth share in the family properties and the final decree was passed on 23rd December, 1925. The plaintiff states that he became a major only in 1940, though this is disputed by the respondents. He filed E.P. No. 362 of 1942, on 26th June, 1942, for execution of the final decree after getting the final decree engrossed with necessary stamps on 26th March, 1942. The learned Subordinate Judge of Goimbatore has dismissed the execution petition on the ground that it is barred under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. It is contended for the appellant that under Secti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »