Chennai Court June 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.
The Queen Vs. Nachimuttu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad18
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. Labourers or menial servants employed to do work or labour on account of the Government are not officers, and do not fall within the definition of public servant in the 21st section of the Indian Penal Code.2. The conviction under Section 353 was improper. They should have been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction will be amended accordingly....
The Municipal Commissioners of Negapatam Vs. Sadaya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad74
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The word 'person' must be construed to include any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, where such construction is not repugnant to the context. The Schedule contemplates that the incidence of the tax on shop-keepers will be governed by the gross rental of the shop in which the business is carried on; and we apprehend it was not intended that each person should pay a license tax on the full gross rental of the shop.2. Trading companies are liable to pay the tax on trades; but it is not every member of the company, but the partnership that is taxed.3. The decision of the Bench is correct....
The Queen Vs. Gulam HussaIn Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad71
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The term 'accepting' in Section 61 of the Stamp Act does not mean receiving but executing as an acceptor.2. As I understand the case, no offence was proved against the accused. He received a promissory note which was not duly stamped, and subsequently put it in suit. This does not constitute an offence under Section 61 of the Stamp Act. The Court will not, therefore, interfere....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›