Chennai Court May 1911 Judgments
In Re: Abdul Rahiman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ766
Sundara Aiyar, J.1. The appellant, a young man of 19, has been convicted of an offence under Section 489(d), Indian Penal Code, that is, having in his possession instruments and materials for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that they were intended to be used, for forging or counterfeiting currency notes. This section has been introduced into the Penal Code by Act XII of 1899 and was drafted apparently on the lines of Section 235, Indian Penal Code (which relates to coins) though the draftsman has made certain variations in the language--I mean, using the words 'for the purpose of being used' in the place of 'for the purpose of using the same' - which cannot be said to be an improvement. But so far as the questions which we have to decide in this case are concerned, there seems to be no substantial difference between the two enactments.2. That the accused, when arrested in the train on a charge of embezzlement which had been laid against him by his empl...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kachi Madar Labbai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ795
ORDERSundara Aiyar, J.1. This is an application to set aside an order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tuticorin passed under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the prosecution of the petitioner for offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The circumstances under which the order was passed are briefly as follows. The petitioner laid a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of extortion and receiving illegal gratification against four persons, two of whom were police officers. The Magistrate, after the examination of the complainant on oath, held a preliminary inquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, without issuing process for the appearance of the accused and after considering the result of the investigation, he dismissed the complaint and directed the prosecution of the complainant as mentioned above on the 22nd November 1909. The complainant applied to the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly for revision of the order of dismissal of t...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Krishna Doss Vs. Alumbu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ777
1. The question in this case is whether an application for execution of a decree of the Small Cause Court presented to the City Civil Court, to which it had been transmitted for execution, was rightly held by that court to be barred by limitation under Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is conceded that under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, which is applicable to the Small Cause Court, the application was not barred. Section 48 of the C.P.C. enacts that 'where an application to execute a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of 12 years from the date of the decree sought to be executed.' This section is not applicable 'to any suit or proceeding' in the Presidency Small Cause Court. The learned judge of the City Civil Court holds that the law of limitation being a law relating to procedure, Section 48, which is applicable to the City Civil Court, must g...
Tag this Judgment!Salimamma and anr. Vs. Valli Husanabba Beari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)21MLJ764
1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Court of South Canara in the proceedings in the insolvency of one Valli Hussanabba. The insolvent claimed to set off the amount of a decree debt in A.S. No. 169 of 1901 of this Court due to him from a creditor against a debt due by him to the creditor. The District Judge disallowed the set-off on the ground that the decree in A.S. No. 169 of 190r was really obtained by the insolvent as trustee for a wakf, while the debt due to the creditor was owed by him personally. On appeal from his order under Section 353 of the Civil Procedure Code preferred by the insolvent, this Court set it aside in the following terms : - 'It is objected for the respondent that Section 247 of the Civil Procedure Code has no application because the parties do not occupy the same character. There is nothing in the decree to shew this. We, therefore, reverse the order of the District Judge and remand the matter for disposal according to law.' On remand the Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjappa and anr. and Basuvaraju and anr. Vs. Nanja Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1911
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.478
1. These are three connected appeals. The Appeals Nos. 10 and 75 of 1911 have been fully argued before us. The decision in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 228 of 1910 naturally follows from the conclusions, we have arrived at in the two former Appeals Nos. 10 and 75 of 1911.2. The facts are somewhat complicated, but, for the purpose of our decision, might be shortly stated thus,(a) Nanja Rao as plaintiff brought Suit No. 9 of 1907 in the Salem Sub-Court for recovery of the impartible Palayapet of Berikai and its appurtenant moveable and immoveable properties against the rival claimant, Puttusawmi, and the Court of Wards who supported Puttusawmi. That suit afterwards became Order Suit No. 2 of 1908 on the file of the District Court of Salem. Puttusawmi (the 1st defendant) was himself appointed as Receiver pending the disposal of this Suit No. 2 of 1908. Two sureties deposited Rs. 30,000 in Court as security for Puttusawmi's proper management as Receiver.(b) During the pendency of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›