Chennai Court May 1884 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Nanjappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-23-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad432
1. This is an appeal against an acquittal. The charge against the accused, Nanjappa Pillai was under Section 21 of the Abkari Act that he sold liquor without being licensed.2. The facts are briefly these--Nanjappa's own license was cancelled for some breach of the regulations. He then put forward one Maktem as a proper person to be licensed for the shop in which he himself had been vending. Maktem was duly approved and licensed by the Collector under Section 8 of the Act, and under cover of that license Nanjappa has been continuing his old business, paying Maktem a certain sum monthly. The accused was convicted by the First-class Magistrate, but this conviction has been reversed by the Court of Session.3. The argument relied on by Government is briefly this : that although a licensed vendor may undoubtedly conduct his business by an agent, Nanjappa cannot be regarded as Maktem's agent so as to take advantage of Maktem's license. The view of the Sessions Judge is that the Collector is e...
Tag this Judgment!Appasami and Five ors. Vs. Nagappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-21-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR7Mad499
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was brought by Nagappa Mudaliar, a minor, through his guardian T. Vedadri Sadasa Mudaliar, against Annasami Ayyar and five others, the members of the Siva committee of the Tinnevelly District, to obtain a declaration that the [500] endowment of the Bhrantheiswara pagoda at Palamcottah is an hereditary trust, and that Nagappa Mudaliar is the hereditary trustee thereof, and in that character entitled to the sole management of the endowment. It was asserted in the plaint that the pagoda was built by Vengu Mudaliar, the great grandfather of the minor, who furnished it with idols, vahanams (vehicles), cars, etc., endowed it with lands, and procured for it a tasdik allowance from Government amounting to Rs. 2639-14-0 and constituted it an hereditary trust; that on the death of Vengu Mudaliar in 1829 the trust passed by succession to his son Gnanasigamani, who administered it till his death in 1845, when the trust descended to his son Vengu Mudaliar, t...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Ragava Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad466
Kernan, J.1. This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State for India for alleged wrongful removal by the Governor of Madras in Council of the plaintiff from the office of a Municipal Commissioner of Salem. On the 8th of February 1882, the plaintiff was elected by the rate-payers of Salem one of the Municipal Commissioners of that town, under the provisions of Section 9 of the Towns' Improvement Act (Madras Act III of 1871).2. Notification of his election was published in the gazette of the 23rd of February 1882 and he entered on the duties of his office.3. In 1883 the Governor in Council made an order, which purported to be under the power given by Section 9 of Act III of 1871, removing the plaintiff from being such Commissioner. That order was published in the gazette, dated the 23rd of May 1883. Section 9 of Act III of 1871 contains the following provision: 'The persons so elected shall continue in office for three years, or until their successors have bee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›