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: K. Sundaresa Aiyar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 20, 1950
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/800164

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. Petn. Nos. 646 and 703 of 1949
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 282A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: K. Sundaresa Aiyar

Advocate S. Krishnamurthi, Adv.

Respondent

Advocate Asst. Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 282A
Reported In
AIR1950Mad657

Excerpt

- .....was a manager director or a servant. the defence of the petitioner was that a sum of rs. 294-5-0 was due to him as arrears of salary etc., for which he had issued a registered notice to the directors of the company, as is sought to be proved by the certified copy of that notice, ex. d-8. the learned magistrate refused to admit ex. d 8 in evidence on the ground that the original had not been summoned. when a document sought to be summoned is itself a notice sent by one party to the other and a copy of the notice is produced by the sender, it seems to me that under section 66, evidence act it is not obligatory to summon production of the original notice. the magistrate's view that the non-summoning of the original notice would make a copy of it inadmissible cannot be right.2. even otherwise the petitioner filed o. s. no. 193 of 1949 on the file of the district munsif's court, kumbakonam, for the recovery of rs. 292 from the company and he obtained a decree for the amount claimed with costs making the same a first charge on the very same movable items which the petitioner is alleged to have wrongfully retained. in view of that, there can be no doubt that the sum of rs. 294-5-0 was actually due to the petitioner, and if for the amount due to him which the management of the company did not pay, he retained with him-self certain movables of the company, it cannot be said that his action is one which is wrongful, as contemplated in section 282-a. i am therefore of opinion that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are illegal.3. the conviction and sentence are therefore set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Govinda Menon, J.

1. The petitioner was a promoter-director of a company by name Chandra and Company, which was the managing agent of the Hind Commonwealth Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam. The case against him was under S. 282-A, Companies Act, in that he wrongfully kept possession of articles belonging to the company of which he was a manager director or a servant. The defence of the petitioner was that a sum of Rs. 294-5-0 was due to him as arrears of salary etc., for which he had issued a registered notice to the directors of the company, as is sought to be proved by the certified copy of that notice, Ex. D-8. The learned Magistrate refused to admit Ex. D 8 in evidence on the ground that the original had not been summoned. When a document sought to be summoned is itself a notice sent by one party to the other and a copy of the notice is produced by the sender, it seems to me that under Section 66, Evidence Act it is not obligatory to summon production of the original notice. The Magistrate's view that the non-summoning of the original notice would make a copy of it inadmissible cannot be right.

2. Even otherwise the petitioner filed O. S. No. 193 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kumbakonam, for the recovery of Rs. 292 from the company and he obtained a decree for the amount claimed with costs making the same a first charge on the very same movable items which the petitioner is alleged to have wrongfully retained. In view of that, there can be no doubt that the sum of Rs. 294-5-0 was actually due to the petitioner, and if for the amount due to him which the management of the company did not pay, he retained with him-self certain movables of the company, it cannot be said that his action is one which is wrongful, as contemplated in Section 282-A. I am therefore of opinion that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are illegal.

3. The conviction and sentence are therefore set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. Fine, If paid, will be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial