Chennai Court January 1902 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.
Major C. Bell, R.A., Superintendent Gun Carriage Factory Vs. the Munic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ208
Benson, J.1. Major Bell, the accused in this case, is the Superintendent of the Government Gun Carriage Factory in the City of Madras. He caused certain timber to be brought into the City on account of Government without Obtaining a license and paying the fees prescribed by Section 341 of the City of Madras Municipal Act I of 1884, and for this act he has been prosecuted at the instance of the Municipal Commissioners and has been fined the nominal sum of one rupee.2. The learned Advocate-General asks us, in the exercise of our powers of revision, to set aside the conviction and sentence as contrary to law. The object of the prosecution and of this revision petition is to obtain an authoritative decision of this Court as to the applicability of Section 341 to Government timber and firewood. The section enacts that no timber or firewood shall be brought within the City without a license specifying the place and conditions of storing, to be issued by the President under the bye-laws, on p...
Bell Vs. the Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad457
Benson, J.1. Major Bell, the accused in this case, is the Superintendent of the Government Gun Carriage Factory in the City of Madras. He caused certain timber to be brought into the city on account of Government without obtaining a license and paying the fees prescribed by Section 841 of the City of Madras Municipal Act I of 1884, and for this act he has been prosecuted at the instance of the Municipal Commissioners and has been fined the nominal sum of one rupee.2. The learned Advocate-General asks us, in the exercise of our powers of revision, to set aside the conviction and sentence as contrary to law. The object of the prosecution and of this revision petition is to obtain an authoritative decision of this Court as to the applicability of Section 341 to Government timber and firewood. The section enacts that 'no timber or firewood shall be brought within the city without a license specifying the place and conditions of storing, to be issued by the President under the bye-laws, on ...
Valambal Ammal Vs. Vythilinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad380
1. This is a suit for the cancellation of a sale-deed executed to the defendant by the plaintiff for Rs. 2,500. In this Court, on second appeal, a stamp duty for Rs. 150 was paid. On behalf of the respondent, the objection was raised that this Court could not entertain the appeal because in the Court of First Instance and in the lower Appellate Court a stamp duty of Rs. 10 only had been paid.2. As regards the appeal to the lower Appellate Court the effect of Section 582A of the Code of Civil Procedure is to enable a defective memorandum of appeal to be retrospectively validated if the insufficiency of the stamp was caused by mistake on the part of the appellant. This section appears to have been introduced for the purpose of meeting a decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court--a decision which was dissented from by this Court in Chennappa v. Raghunatha I.L.R. 15 Mad. 29 and Patcha Saheb v. Sub-Collector of North Arcot I.L.R. 15 Mad. 78 to the effect that if a memorandum of a...
Chehnautha Attekunnath Lakshmi Amma and Two ors. Vs. Palakuzhu Thuppan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad662
1. In paragraph 3 of his judgment the Subordinate Judge observes that the mortgaged property which forms the subject matter of this second appeal belonged to Sankaran Nambudri under a Sarasvadanom grant and then adds 'His Sarasvadanom wife having died isssueless the property belonged to Sankaran Nambudri exclusively, and on his death it lapsed to his mana.' The correctness of the findings of the Subordinate Judge on the two points of law dealt with in this paragraph has been strongly contested here in second appeal.2. If the Subordinate Judge intended to lay down as a rule of law that, notwithstanding the death of the wife without issue, the property of her illom vested absolutely in her husband by virtue of his affiliation under his Sarasvadanom marriage, it is very doubtful if his decision could be upheld. In Kisahva. Thavagan v. Rudran Nambudri I.L.R. 5 Mad. 259 the question as to whether the interest of the son-in-law divested by failure of issue of a Sarasvadanom marriage was cons...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›