Chennai Court October 1906 Judgments
Bhakthavatsalu Naidu and ors. Vs. King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ560
1. For the purposes of the question which has been referred to us it is not necessary to consider whether we should be prepared to adopt the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Queen Empress v. Chagan Jagannath I.L.R(1899) B. 439 and to hold that when the period of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine plus the period of imprisonment left unaltered by the Appellate Court, is the same as the period of the original sentence, there is no enhancement of the sentence such as would render it illegal having regard to the provisions of Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are of opinion that when the aggregate period of imprisonment which the accused may have to undergo is to any extent less than the period of the original sentence the fact that a fine is imposed by the Appellate Court would not in law be an enhancement of the sentence. In a case where such an alteration of the sentence has the effect of rendering it in the circumstances of the case excessive or inappr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bheema
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ525
ORDER1. There is no appeal by the 2nd accused, but we observe that the Sessions Judge is wrong in stating that that accused was not liable by him on a charge of theft in a building.2. That offence, it is true, is not triable exclusively by a Court of Session, but there is nothing to prevent a Sessions Court from trying a person accused of such an offence and duly committed to it for trial.3. In this case the committal was duly made by a competent Magistrate, and such committal can be set aside only by the High Court under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge had no power to set it aside and direct the Magistrate to try the case himself.4. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge in regard to the 2nd accused Bheema, and we set aside all proceedings taken in pursuance of that order and direct the Sessions Judge to restore the case to his file, as against this accused and to deal with it according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Venkappachari Vs. Munjunatha Kamti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ526
Miller, J.1. In July 1900 a suit was instituted for the winding up of the affairs of a 'Subhodaya fund' or mutual aid association, and the appellant who was a subscriber to the fund, became a party to that suit by virtue of a permission given by the Court under Section 30 of the C.P.C. to the plaintiffs on the record to sue on behalf of all the subscribers.2. While that suit was pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court, the appellant instituted a suit against the same defendants in the District Munsif's Court, which suit the District Munsif found to be for the same relief which was prayed in the suit before the Subordinate Judge and so to be barred by Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He stayed proceedings and did not dismiss the suit. Subsequently the suit as stayed was moved into the Subordinate Judge's Court and dismissed by him along with the earlier suit on a preliminary point. The plaintiff appealed, to the District Judge who has dismissed the appeal on the ground that i...
Tag this Judgment!Kesaram Narasimhulu and Vs. Vuddanda Row Narasimhulu Patnailu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ514
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The circumstances in which this appeal comes before us are set out in the judgment which has been written-by my learned brother Miller, J., which. I have had the advantage of reading, and it is not necessary for me to state them. The point for determination is - under the provisions of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895, is the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts excluded in a case in which he plaintiff sues to recover possession of land which he alleges is he emolument of is office of karnam, and the defendant resists he plaintiff's claim on the ground that the land is not the emolument of the office, but is the private property of the plaintiff which passed to the defendant in execution of a decree obtained by him against the plaintiff.?2. The question turns upon the construction of Sections 13 and 21 of the Act. Section 21 excludes certain matters from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts - amongst others, a claim to recover the emolument ...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Manikka Gramani and 9 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ546
ORDERBenson, J.1. The petition is not opposed. I am of opinion that the order of the Sessions Judge directing a retrial is erroneous.2. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, as the Court hearing appeals from the Second Class Magistrate, had jurisdiction under Section 423(1)(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to reverse the finding and sentence of the Second Class Magistrate and to 'order a retrial by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate' to him as an appellate court. These latter words when read with Section 528 ace not to be taken as words of limitation, and do not exclude the appellate court from itself trying the offender, the offence being one within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. This was expressly decided by this Court in the case of Vadakadeth Kanaram in Criminal Revision Case No. 271 of 1890 reported in Weir's Law of Offences, 4th edition, P 481.3. The Sessions Judge was also in error in holding that the Sub-divisional Magistrate entertained the...
Tag this Judgment!Darapu Reddi Subramaniem and ors. Vs. Suri Venkatasubbaraya Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1906
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ563
1. This is a suit to enforce acceptance of a putrah, and the only question raised before us in second appeal is as to the liability to pay water rate to Government under Act VIII of 1865. The water was supplied at the request of the tenant, but the landlord has been allowed a share of the wet crop for the fusli in question. Under these circumstances, although the water was supplied at the request of the tenant; yet, as the landlord has been allowed half of the produce raised with the water, we think he ought to bear his proportion of the water rate on the principle of qui commodum sentit sentire debet et onus, or hi other words, that the benefit and the burden should go together.2. We, therefore, allow the appeal, and direct that the patta shall provide that the tenant shall be liable for half the water rate, the landlord being liable for the other half. The appeal is allowed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›