Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: S. Krishnamurthi Aiyar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 04, 1941
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/798530

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: S. Krishnamurthi Aiyar

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1942Mad690; (1942)2MLJ509

Excerpt

- .....of limitation runs from the date of the notification of the order the application is in time. the learned crown prosecutor says that as the words of section 23 are 'within two months from the date of such order' the court is bound to hold the petition to be out of time. to accept this contention might lead to an absurd situation. if the government omitted to notify the order until two months had elapsed, the aggrieved person would have no remedy at all. it is the duty of the court to interpret a statute according to the ordinary meaning of the words used, unless this would lead to a manifest absurdity and this would be the case here if the word ' 'order'' were taken to refer to the document which was signed on 26th november, 1940. in my judgment the word 'order' contemplates the notified order. section 19 says that where a book appears to the provincial government to contain any words, signs or visible representations of the nature described in section 4, sub-section (1) the provincial government may, by notification in the official gazette, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the book to be forfeited to his majesty. the word 'order' in section 23 must be read as being the notified order because there can be no forfeiture until the declaration has been notified. for these reasons i hold that the petition has been filed in time.mockett, j.3. i entirely agree.krishnaswami ayyangar, j.4. i agree.

Full Judgment

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The petitioner is the author of a book written in Tamil and entitled 'Vira Savarkar' which has been translated as 'Savarkar the Hero'. It purports to be a biography of Mr. V. D. Savarkar, who has been the President of the Hindu Mahasabha since 1937. On 26th November, 1940, the Provincial Government declared the book to be forfeited to His Majesty under Section 19 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, read, with Section 4 (1)(a). The petitioner has applied to this Court under Section 23 for an order setting aside the declaration of forfeiture. The learned Crown Prosecutor has raised the preliminary objection that the application is out of time, and therefore it is necessary to decide this question before dealing with the merits of the application.

2. Section 23 states that a person having an interest in property in respect of which an order of forfeiture has been made may within two months from the date of the order apply to the High Court to set it aside. The order of forfeiture in this case was not published in the Fort St. George Gazette until 3rd December, 1940. The petition was filed on 3rd February, 1941. If time is to run from the date on which the order was passed the application is out of time, but if the period of limitation runs from the date of the notification of the order the application is in time. The learned Crown Prosecutor says that as the words of Section 23 are 'within two months from the date of such order' the Court is bound to hold the petition to be out of time. To accept this contention might lead to an absurd situation. If the Government omitted to notify the order until two months had elapsed, the aggrieved person would have no remedy at all. It is the duty of the Court to interpret a statute according to the ordinary meaning of the words used, unless this would lead to a manifest absurdity and this would be the case here if the word ' 'order'' were taken to refer to the document which was signed on 26th November, 1940. In my judgment the word 'order' contemplates the notified order. Section 19 says that where a book appears to the Provincial Government to contain any words, signs or visible representations of the nature described in Section 4, Sub-section (1) the Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the book to be forfeited to His Majesty. The word 'order' in Section 23 must be read as being the notified order because there can be no forfeiture until the declaration has been notified. For these reasons I hold that the petition has been filed in time.

Mockett, J.

3. I entirely agree.

Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.

4. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial