Advanced Search Results
Kannathazha Pakram and ors. Vs. Manathil Eacharattil Krishnan Nair
Chennai
Burn, J.
Oct-23-1936
Civil
169Ind.Cas.346
Burn, J.1. There is little that I can find to add to the judgment of the learned District Munsif and the judgment of tie learned District Judge in this case. The points taken to behalf of...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRukmani Ammal Vs. Subramania Sastrigal and anr.
Chennai
Burn, J.
Aug-31-1939
PropertyCivil
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 9, Rule 13 - Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47
AIR1940Mad82; (1940)1MLJ460
Burn, J. 1. This appeal is from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly. in E.A. No. 8 of 1935 dismissing the appellant's application, under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47 of the...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskIn Re: Narayanaswamy Padayachi and anr.
Chennai
Burn, J.
Nov-03-1932
Criminal
143Ind.Cas.190
ORDERBurn, J.1. The objection that the trial was barred under the first proviso to Section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, for want of the certificate of the Political Agent for Karaikal appears to me to be sound....
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Mariasusai Udayan and ors. Vs. Hajee Mahamud Azeaudeen Sahib Bahadur
Chennai
Burn, J.
Apr-30-1936
Property
164Ind.Cas.689
ORDERBurn, J.1. There was nothing to prevent the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate from drawing up a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure on the date on which he decided that the case was...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskIn Re: Konka Venkataratnam
Chennai
Burn, J.
Dec-21-1934
Land Acquisition
159Ind.Cas.422
ORDERBurn, J.1. There were not really six offences committed by the petitioner in these cases. At the most it seems to me there were two offences committed which were: (1) employing four persons on a Sunday...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskIn Re: Kadir Mohideen Sahib
Chennai
Burn, J.
Feb-11-1935
Criminal
156Ind.Cas.325
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a motor lorry. The facts found are thus stated by the learned Joint Magistrate:On August 18, 1934, Sergeant checked the lorry. It had no G Permit. It contained...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskKoti Vishwandham Vs. Pandiri Satyanandham and ors.
Chennai
Burn, J.
Feb-03-1936
Land Acquisition
162Ind.Cas.840
ORDERBurn, J.1. This application coming on for bearing upon perusing the application and the judgment and decree of the lower Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate, for the petitioner, and...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskIn Re: V. Narayana Iyer
Chennai
Burn, J.
Sep-13-1923
MRTP
140Ind.Cas.260
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 5, Sub-section 1(6) and (d) and Section 20(d) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act III of 1918 and fined Rs. 50.2. There is...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskIn Re: Maromma and ors.
Chennai
Burn, J.
Aug-08-1932
MRTP
140Ind.Cas.756
Burn, J.1. It is contended by Mr. T.M. Venugopal Mudaliar, for the appellants that the statement made on oath by the appellants under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, were not 'in relation to a proceeding' in...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskThe Crown Prosecutor Vs. Rengammal and anr.
Chennai
Burn, J.
Apr-25-1935
Land Acquisition
159Ind.Cas.155
ORDERBurn, J.1. In allhte material parts, the wording of Section 82(c), of theIndian Registration Act is identical with that of Sectio 205 of the Indian Penal Code. So long ago as 1867 it was held by...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »