Chennai Court October 1908 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.
Bathini Kumarasawmy Naidu and anr. Vs. Rajah Kamiveni Bangaru Ankappa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1108a
1. If this is a suit for compensation for illegal attachment it is barred by limitation (art. 28, Schedule II, Act. XV of 1877); if it is a suit to which Article 49 applies, there is no second appeal as the suit is of a nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court. In either event we must dismiss the appeal.2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs....
Emperor Vs. Maddipatla Subbarayadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.1130a
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. From the language of Section 31 of the Court Fees Act, it is clear that the order directing the accused who was convicted of a non-cognizable offence to re-pay to the complainant the fee paid on the latter's petition of complaint does not form part of the sentence passed upon the accused for the offence, and in fact, the section itself says that the order levying the amount of Court fee is to be in addition to any penalty that may be imposed for the offence itself. This view has been adopted in Emperor v. Karuppan Pillai 29 M. 188; 3 Cr. L.J. 460 and in Madan Mandul v. Haran Ghose 20 C. 687. That being so, the Head Assistant Magistrate hearing the appeal from the conviction of the accused under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, was not competent to set aside the order of the trying Magistrate under Section 31, Court Fees Act. The order of the Head Assistant Magistrate is, therefore, reversed to that extent and that of the trying Magistrate restored....