Air 1925 Mad 1 - Judgment Search Results
Setu Iyer Vs. Sundaram Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad175
1. In this case a vacancy occurred in the trusteeship of the Perur temple on the 29th of August, … but it is argued that under Clause 4(b) the notice should have specifically stated that, unless the Committee made the appointment within one month from the date of service the Court would proceed to fill up the
B. Subbayya Vs. K. Ranga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad181
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The District Judge of Kurnool has made an order, admitting at the instance of the 1st plaintiff, additional evidence while hearing an appeal and the
Subramania Aiyar Vs. Narayanasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1240
established is a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under the promissory note. Reference has been made to Ramjibun Shrougy v. Oghore Nath Chatterji [1898] 25 Cal. 401 where it is distinctly laid down, though … is a suit on a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 13th February 1921 for Rs. 3,000, being the price of the plaintiff's house and some I building materials with
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Rajammal Vs. Tyagaraja Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1245
1. We regret we cannot uphold this order. The application that was made was no doubt in terms for the appointment of a Receiver, but its purpose was not to safeguard
Narayana Doss Vs. Sankarasubbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1197
to a case of enfranchised or enfranchisable inam. The case in Gadadhara Das Bavaji v. Suryanarayana Patnaik A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 547 was also a similar case. So also Brahmayya v. Achiraju A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 373. These oases … case we have not a case of a whole village. The case in Appalanarasimhulu v. Sanyasi (1915) 38 Mad. 33 related to a subsequent inam, i.e., land granted by a zamindar after the settlement, (a grant before
AmIn Mallikarjuna Vs. Bangle Becran Kunhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1212
Madhavan Nair, J.1. An amin of the District Munsif's Court of Kaaargod is the petitioner. He was deputed by
A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachallam Chetti and ors. Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Sethup ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1260
not disputed that the plaint, having been presented on the 7th July 1919, the re-opening day after the Madura Sub-Court's vacation, is in time, if the plaintiff has 6 years under Article 116, from the date of … who are the firm of A.L.A.R., an account of the income of the village of Ekkakudi for fasli 1322 and for payment of the amount due, according to the accounts, or such amount as may be due
Public Prosecutor Vs. M. Sanyasayya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1224
very great one, because their trial is fixed to take place not later than the 6th of January 1925. Had it been a question of waiting in jail for months pending the trial, speaking for myself, I … very great one, because their trial is fixed to take place not later than the 6th of January 1925. Had it been a question of waiting in jail for months pending the trial, speaking for myself, I
Putti Sethu Rao Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1188
High Court decided against the defendants (22nd September, 1916); see Kalyan Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturiranga Ayyangar (1917) 40 Mad. 212 and the decision certainly operated from 25th August, 1911.2. It is now claimed that the period between … temple, the collection of offerings of money, etc., in the hundials of the temple. The plaint is dated 15th August, 1919. The offerings sought to be recovered cover the period 25th August, 1911 to 31st August 1914.
Ramaswami Alias Duraiyya Sembimutharasu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1213
it by the use of criminal force. It has been held in Queen-Empress v. Pellimuthu Thevan (1901) 24 Mad. 124 that the mere fact that a crowd of 100 persons including the accused had assembled together armed … of criminal force or show of criminal force of doing any of the various things mentioned in Section 141, I.P.C. All that could reasonably be inferred from the mere fact of the 20 or 30 Pallars having
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free