William PlyThe Petrett Vs. Emperor

William PlyThe Petrett vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 03, 1927

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/804913

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/804913
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Feb 03, 1927
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

William PlyThe Petrett

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred: Segu Baliah v. Ramaswamiah
Reported In: AIR1927Mad1018

Excerpt

- 1. we think the conviction is right. the evidence is clear that the furniture was entrusted to the appellant by the official assignee for the purpose of continuing his business and that, in breach of the trust, the appellant disposed of it to various persons. it is urged that the offences committed fell under section 103, presidency towns insolvency act, and that the jurisdiction of the magistrate was thereby excluded. assuming that the facts proved do amount to an offence under section 103, (b) (2), presidency towns insolvency act, which is not clear, we do not think that the magistrate had no jurisdiction: vide segu baliah v. ramaswamiah [1917] 6 m. l. w. 283 42 i. c. 608.2. the sentence is not excessive. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. We think the conviction is right. The evidence is clear that the furniture was entrusted to the appellant by the Official Assignee for the purpose of continuing his business and that, in breach of the trust, the appellant disposed of it to various persons. It is urged that the offences committed fell under Section 103, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was thereby excluded. Assuming that the facts proved do amount to an offence under Section 103, (b) (2), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, which is not clear, we do not think that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction: vide Segu Baliah v. Ramaswamiah [1917] 6 M. L. W. 283 42 I. C. 608.

2. The sentence is not excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

Same Parties William PlyThe Petrett vs Emperor Same Subject Civil

Civil