Chennai Court November 1897 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.
Queen-empress Vs. Jayarami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad360
1. We think there is no doubt that the revolver in the case is a fire-arm within the meaning of the Act. The question is not so much whether the particular weapon is serviceable as a fire-arm, but whether it has lost its specific character and has so ceased to be a fire-arm. In referring to the serviceable character of the arm we think the decision in The Queen v. Siddappa I.L.R. Mad. 60 was not correct and that the proper test was lost sight of. Whether in any particular case the instrument is a fire-arm or not, is a question of fact to be determined according to circumstances. We answer the question in the affirmative.2. This case again coming on for final disposal after the expression of the opinion of the Full Bench, the Court (Collins, C.J., and Benson, J.) delivered the following judgment:3. The ruling of the Full Bench renders it necessary to set aside the acquittal. We accordingly do this, and we restore the conviction and sentence passed by the Joint Magistrate....
Viru Mammad Vs. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad149
1. 'With regard to the sixth defendant, the sub-kanom being prior to the 1st January 1886, the Act does not affect the validity of the contract thereby made. As between this defendant and the appellant the former can only be entitled to the compensation which the contract gives him.2. As to the other defendants (now respondents) it is said that the bulk of the improvements must have been effected before the Act came into force, and that for the improvements effected before that date they are only entitled to be paid according to the rates stipulated in the sub-kanoms. It appears to us that Section 7 of the Act cannot be construed retrospectively, so as to invalidate agreements made with respect to improvements prior to the passing of the Act. So far as the Section relates to making improvements, it must refer to improvements to be made subsequently, and, this being so, it is difficult to construe the rest of the Section as referring to improvements effected prior to the date of the Act...
Ramanadan Chetti Vs. Nagooda Maracayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad395
1. The plaintiff sued the defendant for Rs. 6,233-4-0, consisting of Rs. 5,000, balance of the sale amount of a ship, and Rs. 1,233-4-0, interest thereon at 12 per cent, per annum from the 2nd August 1893, claimed as damages.2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant entered into a written agreement with him (through his agent) on the 21st July 1893 to purchase a ship belonging to the plaintiff for Rs. 8,250 that, when Rs. 3,250 of the purchase money had been paid in pursuance of the agreement, the defendant wrongfully obtained possession of the ship without the agreement being fully completed and carried it away and he claimed the balance and damages.3. The facts are that on the 20th July 1893, a written agreement was signed by the defendant to the plaintiff's agent, whereby the price of the vessel was settled at Rs. 8,250 and it was agreed that the defendant having paid Rs. 701 of the purchase money should pay Rs. 2,549 more in fifteen days and the agreement continues in these wo...
Adikkan Vs. Alagan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR21Mad237
1. We cannot concur in the view of the law taken by the Head Assistant Magistrate. He relies on Shib Nath Chong v. Sarat Chunder Sarkar I.L.R. 22 Cal. 586. That case is not on all fours with the present case but even if it were, we should, with great respect for the learned Judges who decided it, feel bound to dissent from its conclusions. We do not think that there is anything in the terms of Section 560, Criminal Procedure Code, to justify the conclusion that a Magistrate who grants sanction to prosecute for offences punishable under Sections 211 and 193 Indian Penal Code, is ipso facto debarred from also granting compensation under Section 560, Criminal Procedure Code, to the person falsely accused. The sanction to prosecute for making a false charge is granted on grounds of public policy for an offence against public justice. The compensation is granted partly in order to deter complainants from making vexatious and frivolous complaints, and partly in order to compensate the accuse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›