Chennai Court August 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.
The Province of Madras Vs. C.A. Galia Kotwala and Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad69; (1945)2MLJ418
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this action and the appellant in the appeal is the Government of Madras. It sued on the Original Side of this Court to recover from the respondent, a limited liability company trading in fire hose pipe, the sum of Rs. 24,982-6-0, moneys which it had paid to the defendant for goods supplied, the allegation being that the goods had proved to be of inferior quality. The contract was for the supply of 10,000 feet of hose. The hose was delivered in instalments between the 28th April, 1942 and the 3rd June, 1942. By the 8th May, 1942, the defendant had delivered 7,986 feet and had received payment in full for this quantity by the 15th May, 1942. The balance of the contract was delivered in three instalments between the 19th May, 1942 and the 3rd June, 1942, but these goods were not paid for. The Rs. 24,982-6-0 represented the price of the 7,986 feet supplied up to the 8th May, 1942. The defendant brought a counter-claim for the price of the ...
In Re: Labhai Alias Sheik Abdul Khadir and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad7; (1945)2MLJ235
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioners are accused 7 and 8 in C.C. No. 77 of 1945 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Devakottai. They, along with others, were prosecuted under Section 120-B, Penal Code read with Rule 90-B of the Defence of India Rules, for conspiracy to export gold from British India. The petitioners contended that the prosecution cannot be started without a sanction as required by Section 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It runs thus:No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, * * * (2) in a case where the object of the conspiracy is to commit any non-cognizable offence, or a cognziable offence not punishable with death, transportation or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the Provincial Government or a Chief Presidency Magistrate or District Magistrate empowered in this behalf by the Provincial Government, has, by order in ...
Achanta Venkata Purna Sivaramayya and ors. Vs. Manne Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ412
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by defendants 1 to 8 and it relates to a mortgage executed by defendants 1 and 2 and their deceased father in favour of the. 13th defendant for a sum of Rs. 3,000 on 14th December, 1919. The plaintiff now stands in the shoes of the mortgagee. In 1930 the mortgagors sold one of the two items mortgaged to the 9th defendant under Ex. P-4, and he sold it to the 10th defendant who gifted it to the 14th defendant. The sale to the 9th defendant was for the purpose of discharging the mortgage debt of Rs. 3,000, and it is expressly recited in the deed that ' it has been settled that the aforesaid sale consideration shall be paid by you, immediately after the registration of this document, towards the debt due in respect of the mortgage dated 14th December, 1919.' A debt due on another mortgage is also mentioned in the sale deed as an item that the 9th defendant undertook to pay off; but nothing appears from the records as to what happene...
In Re: Tammina Mutyalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad45; (1945)2MLJ414
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Kistna for an offence punishable under Section 5 of Act VI of 1908 and sentenced to transportation for 5 years. He was charged also for having committed an offence under Section 4 of that Act but he has been acquitted in respect of the same.2. The Reserve Police Force which was temporarily located at Bezwada was housed in temporary huts by the side of the Bandar canal. On 15th November, 1942, even before the huts were completed, a corner in the line caught fire. On pulling down the palmyra leaves from the roof, two cotton balls were noticed each J an inch in diameter. The balls were suspected to be phosphorus balls. On 6th December, 1942, when a sentry was keeping watch, he saw fire breaking, out from the eastern side of the police line at 5-30 p.m. At 3 p.m., on 7th December, 1942, the house of the accused was searched in which several articles were found, M. Os. i to 17, viz., a Congress flag, an...
Ramachandra Prabhu and anr. Vs. Mahadevi Alias Kunhi Thamburatti Style ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad57; (1945)2MLJ416
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. S.A. Nos. 1308 and 1324 of 1944 and C.M. S.A. No. 228 of 1944. S.A. No. 1308 of 1944 has been preferred by the defendants 12 and 13 and S.A. No. 1324 of 1944 by the second defendant. The second defendant stands in the shoes of the original lessee Raricha Mooppan. Defendants 12 and 13 hold subordinate interests carved out from the original lease Ex. P-6, having become entitled thereto under several transactions; in fact, they are sub-kanomdars, the original kanom having been created in favour of one Venkataramayyar by the tenant under a deed dated 10th January, 1908.2. The suit was instituted by the jenmis for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent due. The recovery of possession was sought on the ground that the tenant denied the landlord's title and there was in consequence a forfeiture of the tenancy. The District Munsiff held that the lease evidenced by Ex. P-6 dated 3rd December, 1898, was governed by the Transfer of Property Act and that, as ther...
Vemulapalli Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Vetrapu Kajireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad61; (1945)2MLJ427
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the execution of a decree obtained by the appellants in Original Suit No. 62 of 1932 in the Court of the District Judge of Kistna in barred by the law of limitation. The District Judge has held that it is. The decree was passed against ten of the fifteen defendants, namely, against defendants 1 to 9 and 15. We agree with the District Judge that the decree is barred against defendants 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 15. Whether it is barred against the second and sixth defendants will depend on the result of a further inquiry which we propose to order the District Judge to make.2. The decree was passed on the 29th January, 1935, for the payment of Rs. 6,181-4-0 with interest and costs. On the 27th January, 1938, the decree-holders filed a petition asking for the execution of the decree by the arrest of the judgment-debtors. As the application was made two years after the date of the decree the decree-holders included in thei...
Kumariah Naicker and Six ors. Vs. Chinna Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad167; (1945)2MLJ577
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Ramnad with regard to G.C No. 64 of 1945 on the file of the Additional Sub-Magistrate of Aruppukottah. Notice has been given to the complainant and he has not appeared in this Court. He filed a complaint for dacoity, theft etc., aginst the accused. That was investigated by the police and was finally thrown out under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was on the 23rd December, 1944. On the 18th January, 1945, the complainant presented another complaint against the same accused on the same facts. The accused objected to the preferring of the complaint. The Magistrate held that the dismissal of the prior complaint under Section 203 was not a bar to the entertainment of the second complaint. The Additional District Magistrate is of the opinion that the order of the Sub-Magistrate was unsustainable as he had no jurisdiction to entertain the second complaint as the prior complaint had been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›