Chennai Court March 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.
Divakaran Nambudripad and anr. Vs. Koodalur Manakkal Brahmadathan Namb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ447
Mockett, J.1. The judgment-debtors are the appellants and the decree-holder is the first respondent. The essential facts may be very shortly, stated. 10th November, 1931, is the date of the decree. On 10th November, 1943, the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 319 of 1943, seeking to attach the properties of the defendants. The execution petition was in the usual form and prayer (10) in the petition is as follows : It is prayed that the amounts mentioned in columns 7 and 8 with future interest and costs should be recovered by attaching and selling the movable properties belonging to the first defendant shown in the schedule below. The decree-holder should be given permission to bid at the auction.....In addition to the properties mentioned in the schedule below all the movable and immovable properties pf defendants 1 and 2 should be attached and also a warrant of arrest against second defendant issued and the decree amount should thus be collected and paid.It continues:The schedule of the re...
G.J. Subbarayulu and anr. Vs. A. Rm. A.N. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad281; (1945)1MLJ460
1. This appeal is from an order passed in execution proceedings instituted on the original side of ihe Court. It raises a question of law, but a statement of the facts is necessary in order to understand the position.2. Under a contract in writing dated the 21st August, 1941, the respondent delivered to the appellants a cinematograph projector. The contract purported to be a hire purchase agreement, but it did not in law amount to such an agreement because there was no option in the appellants to terminate the hire. The contract contemplated the appellants paying for the projector in instalments and it expi-essly provided that the ownership of the machine should not pass to them until the price had been paid in full. In default of payment of an instalment, the respondent had the option of cancelling the contract, in owhich event he had the right to forfeit a sum of Rs. 1,000 which the appellants had deposited with him as security for the fulfilment of their part of the bargain, and of ...
Samuel Fitz and Company Limited Vs. the Standard Cotton and Silk Weavi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad291; (1945)2MLJ24
Horwill, J.1. The appellant is a Joint Stock Company havine its office at Calcutta. We know that it had dealings with a merchant in Australia to whom it sold cotton fabrics, described as tapestries, of the kind made by the plaintiff's limited comnanv resident in Calicut, which made silk and cotton piecegoods. In October, 1941, the parties entered into correspondence with regard to the making of tapestries by the plaintiff for the defendant, who made it clear that he intended to sell them in Australia. The defendant company stated its requirements to the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to send samples. After some correspondence, terms were fixed and contracts entered into between the parties for the supply, to the specification given by the defendant, of certain qualities of goods. We are here concerned with two contracts, one evidenced by Exs. P-l and P-5 for the supply of 600 pieces, and the other for the supplv of 90 pieces, evidenced by Exs. P-3 and P-5 (a). The defendant had take...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›