Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-26-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Mad629; (1943)2MLJ19
Byers, J.1. This appeal is by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge of Madura of an offence punishable under Section 277-L (4) of the Indian Companies Act and of which he had been convicted by the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Usilampatti in C.C. No. 195 of 1941 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 with simple imprisonment for six months in default of payment.2. The facts which are undisputed were these. The respondent is a director and also the secretary of a banking company known as the Swarnavalli Bank, Limited, situated in Periakulam and according to its Articles of association a reserve fund had been created which amounted on the day of the alleged occurrence to Rs. 20,302 and odd. This sum related to profits earned prior to 1934 and it is common ground that since then no profits have been earned. Under the Indian Companies (Amendment) Act of 1936, the maintenance of a reserve fund became obligatory for all banking c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-13-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Mad139; (1943)1MLJ1
1. The question which has been referred is whether the word 'sister' in the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, includes a half-sister. That Act was passed because the Legislature deemed it to be expedient to alter the order in which certain heirs of a Hindu male dying intestate are entitled to succeed to his estate. Section 2 says that a son's daughter, daughter's daughter, sister, and sister's son shall, in the order so specified, be entitled to rank in the order of succession, next after a father's father and before a father's brother. There is a conflict of opinion on the question whether the word 'sister' includes a half-sister. The Allahabad High Court in Ram Adhar v. Sudesra I.L.R. (1933) All. 725, has held that the word 'sister' does not include a half-sister, and this decision has been followed by this Court in Angamuthu Muthirian v. Sinnapennammal (1937) 47 L.W. 286, and by the Patna High Court in Mst. Daulat Kuer v. Bishundeo Singh I.L.R. Pat. 382. On the other h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-03-1942
Reported in : (1942)2MLJ748
Kunhi Raman, J.1. In these cases the only question of law that arises for consideration is whether it is incumbent upon the petitioners who are receivers appointed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta to the estate of the deceased R.M.Ar. Ar.Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar to obtain succession certificates before claiming decrees in the suits filed by them against certain debtors of the estate. It is conceded that these debts are all due under promissory notes executed in favour of the deceased person. In a litigation that arose after the death of the deceased, the petitioners were appointed receivers with express authority to sue in their own names as they have done in these suits and realise the outstandings. The Court below has arrived at the conclusion that succession certificates are necessary in view of the provisions of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act. Because such certificates were not produced within the time allowed to the petitioners by the lower Court the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-05-1942
Reported in : AIR1942Mad751; (1942)2MLJ444
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether a transferee of immovable property is entitled to a charge on it in respect of the amount disbursed by him in paying off a mortgage on the property when he is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee by reason of the fact that there does not exist a registered agreement of the nature of that contemplated in the third paragraph of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The first paragraph of the section states that any of the persons referred to in Section 91 (other than a mortgagor) and a co-mortgagor shall, on redeeming the property subject to the mortgage, have, as regards redemption, foreclosure or sale, the same rights as the mortgagee whose mortgage he redeems may have against the mortgagor or another mortgagee. The second paragraph says that the right conferred by the section is called the right of subrogation and a person acquiring such right is said to be subrogated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-02-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Mad74; (1942)2MLJ120
1. The question, raised in. this appeal is whether there can be a valid pledge of shares by the deposit of the share certificate when it is not accompanied by an instrument of transfer. The appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat to recover what was due on a promissory note executed by one Subramania Pattar in favour of one Ramakrishna Pattar, the instrument having been endorsed to the appellant. When the appellant demanded the amount due under the promissory note, the maker deposited with, him as security for payment a. share certificate in respect of shares held by him in the Parli Tile Works, Limited. The certificate was not accompanied by a deed transferring the shares to the appellant, but he claims that notwithstanding this there was a valid pledge of the shares. The suit was contested by the fourth defendant, who is the first respondent in this appeal. On a date subsequent to the deposit of the share certificate with the appellant the first res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-07-1942
Reported in : AIR1942Mad720; (1942)2MLJ364
King, J.1. This appeal is concerned with part of the estate of one Thangappa Pillai, who died in 1934 leaving; no issue but two widows, a sister and a sister's son. The two widows are plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. First defendant is Thangappa Pillai's sister and 2nd defendant is 1st defendant's son. There was a dispute amongst these persons as to the disposal of Thangappa Pillai's estate and the dispute was submitted to arbitration. The award of the. arbitrators was to the effect that the portion of the estate which forms the subject-matter of the present suit was to be conveyed by plaintiff and the 3rd defendant to defendants 1 and 2 and that in return for this, the defendants 1 and 2 should release all their rights as prospective reversioners to the other portions of Thangappa Pillai's estate and defendant 2 should perform the funeral ceremonies of Thangappa Pillai. It has been found therefore that the consideration for the transfer by the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant to defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-23-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Mad449; (1943)1MLJ198
Krishnaswamy Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tenali in execution of a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla in O.S. No. 63 of 1922 on his file. The appellant is the legal representative of the fourth defendant in the suit which resulted in the decree now sought to be executed. The respondent is the legal representative of the decree-holder. The appellant's contention in short was that there was no valid executable decree so far as he is concerned. This contention having been overruled by the Subordinate Judge he has appealed to this Court against his order.2. In order to appreciate the question that arises for consideration in this appeal it is necessary to state a few facts. O.S. No. 63 of 1922 was instituted by one Lakshmiarayana to recover a sum of Rs. 9,282-5-4 being the balance due on a mortgage dated 1st April, 1910, executed in his favour by the husband of the first defendant in the suit. There were numerous other ...
Tag this Judgment!