Chennai Court February 1883 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Burla Ranga Reddi Vs. Kalapalli Sithaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad368
Innes, J.1. The parties agreed to accept the decision of the arbitrators without any appeal whatever. On the ground that in disposing of Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 50 of 1881 we overlooked this portion of the agreement and the objection to the jurisdiction of the Judge founded upon it, a Review is now sought of our order passed on 11th November 1881.2. The date of the karar was 30th March 1880. No suit was then pending. On the 20th July the petition was put into Court under Section 523 of the Civil Procedure Code to be numbered and registered as a suit. It was thereupon subject to the provisions prescribed with reference to a suit so filed (Section 524) so far as they might be consistent with the agreement filed, and it is said that the agreement in this case excluded all interference of a Court of Justice after the reference to arbitration. But, supposing the arbitrator arrived at a decision not warranted by the matters referred, or left out some material matter which had been r...
Charles Snell and Alexander Seddons Vs. the Queen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad201
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. It is shown that, by a general rule sanctioned and notified as required by law, the guard and driver of a ballast train should, on a line worked on the block system, stop the train at a station and should not leave the station till the guard has received from the Station Master and delivered to the driver a ' line-clear' certificate.2. It is also shown that on the 27th October the appellants disobeyed that rule, and it cannot be doubted that by so doing they endangered the safety of persons using the railway between the Seringapatam and French Rocks Stations.3. It is no answer to the charge that the rule had been habitually broken, if the evidence as to the disregard of it is reliable, nor is it any answer to the charge that obedience to the rule would possibly not have prevented the accident which occurred. The appellants are liable to conviction not by reason of consequences directly referable to their default, but by reason of the da...
The Queen Vs. Muttu Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad199
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. By the term 'labouring classes' in the Act I of 1858 we understand not only persons who let their labour for hire, but also persons who habitually engage in manual labour, although they may at the same time be employers of labour.2. We have not sufficient information to determine whether either of the accused was a person who would be properly designated a member of the labouring classes in the sense in which that term is interpreted by us. It is also not clearly apparent that the proper steps were taken to procure the assistance the public officers were entitled to require. The conviction under Act I of 1858 cannot be maintained, but the accused are shown to have committed hurt, and it is unnecessary to disturb their conviction for that offence.3. The sentences are not severe....
Dugappa Chotti Vs. Vidhia Purna Tirthasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad263
1. The plaintiff by the plaint filed in suit 258 of 1879, claims to have the proprietary right in land assessed at Us. 14-6-4 in varg No. 23 in Vakavadi village and sues to recover rent therefor from 1872 from the defendant, who is stated in the plaint to hold on chalgaini lease. He also sues to have a portion of the three vargs, viz., No. 2, No. 23, and No. 25 in the same village, and in the possession of the defendant, held at a rent of Rs. 14-6-4 per annum payable to Government, and 41/2 to 51/2 muras of rice to the Aneigadi Ganapathi Devastanam and 41 regulation muras to the plaintiff's mattam, delivered to him.2. The suit for demarcation and delivery of portion of the three vargs in the defendants' possession to the plaintiffs is founded on the allegation that the varg No. 23 was demised to the defendants' ancestors very many years ago, and that they did not preserve the boundaries of that varg, but allowed them to be destroyed, so that the landlord's land, yarg No. 23, cannot be ...
Narayanasami Chetti Vs. Samidas Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad293
1. In Suit 713 of 1879 plaintiff sued the defendant's father for a sum due on two promissory notes, one of which was for Rs. 30; the District Munsif passed judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the one note, but dismissed that portion of the claim based upon the note for Rs. 30, on the ground that it was barred by lapse of time. Defendant's father is said to have soon afterwards executed the note now sued upon for Rs. 30, promising to pay this debt which had been declared to be barred. He afterwards died and plaintiff sued his son. The District Munsiff found that the promissory note had been in fact executed, but that the son was not bound by the promise of the father to pay a barred debt.2. We are now asked, in revision, to set aside this decision.3. The fact that the debt was barred by the Act of Limitation did not affect the existence of the debt, and there was nothing illegal or immoral in the action of the father in promising to pay it. The new note operated as a renewal of...
Narayana Chetti Vs. Alfred Champion
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad1
Innes, J.1. We do not see that the suit was barred by limitation. The judgment in appeal was pronounced on the 5th January, but the costs had to be taxed and inserted in the decree, and the solicitor still continued on the record and was bound, on notice received on the 22nd February, to communicate, as he did, with his client, and take his instructions as to whether he should appear and watch his client's interests at the taxation, or should refrain from doing so. On the 23rd, on which date he communicated with defendant, he was instructed not to appear. It cannot be said that the suit had terminated in the sense of Article 84 of the Limitation Act until the costs were inserted in the decree and had issued. The suit was within three years from 22nd February 1878, and was therefore in time.2. This petition must be dismissed with costs. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›