Chennai Court September 1913 Judgments
Kamakshamma Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ445
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. There seems to be no provision of law which empowers the High Court to quash the conviction and sentence by a Sessions Judge and order a new trial because some of the material records of the Sessions trial have been lost. If the convicted prisoner appeals, then, it will be time enough to interfere if necessary. There is no provision of law (so far as I know) which enacts that, unless all the records of a case are in the court house, at the time of convicting and sentencing, the conviction and sentence are void, and should be quashed or that the Sessions Judge's trial has been held without jurisdiction or the sentence passed without jurisdiction. If the convicted prisoner is satisfied that justice has been meted out to her, there is no ground for interference of this court. Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only imposes the condition that the judgment should be pronounced in open Court and imposes a few other conditions, but such conditions do not i...
Tag this Judgment!K.R.V. Firm Vs. Sathyavada Sitharama Swami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad609; (1913)25MLJ501
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff, a firm of merchants carrying on business in Madras, against the three defendants, who are brothers alleged to be carrying on business in partnership in the mofussil for the price of goods sold and delivered with interest according to agreement; and the plaint alleges that accounts were settled on the 7th January 1909 when Rs. 3976-0-6 were found due to the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant signed for that amount in the books of the plaintiffs. The 1st and 3rd defendants do not contest the suit. The 2nd defendant has filed a written statement in which he denies carrying on business in partnership with the 1st and 3rd defendants and says that the business belonged exclusively to the 1st defendant. He also denies that the business was a family trade and says there was no meaning in calling the defendants members of an undivided Hindu family as there is no family property. He also pleads that the suit is barred by limitation. 2. The transactions...
Tag this Judgment!K.R.V. Firm Vs. Sathyavada Seetharamaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR37Mad146
Wallis, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs, a firm of merchants carrying on business in Madras, against the three defendants, who are brothers alleged to be carrying on business in partnership in the mofussil for the price of goods sold and delivered with interest according to agreement; and the plaint alleges that accounts were settled on 7th January 1909 when Rs. 3,976-0-6 were found due to the plaintiffs and the first defendant signed for that amount in the books of the plaintiffs. The first and third defendants do not contest the suit. The second defendant has filed a written statement in which he denies carrying on business in partnership with the first and third defendants and says that the business belonged exclusively to the first defendant. He also denies that the business was a family trade and says there was no meaning in calling the defendants members of an undivided Hindu family as there is no family property. He also pleads that the suit is barred by limitation.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Meyyaru Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad150(2); 22Ind.Cas.721; (1915)28MLJ132
ORDER1. Though there may be certain Calcutta decisions confining rather strictly the powers of magistrates in respect of orders directing under Section 144, Clause (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code ' any person to abstain from a certain act ' the Madras cases (See Ramanadhan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti I.L.R. (1900) M. 45 and Queen Empress v. Abdulla Sait I.L.R. (1900) M. 262 have not taken such a restricted view of the section.2. In the present case, the Magistrate has merely restrained the 2nd party (petitioners before me) from trying to exercise any acts as melvaramdar or to assist first petitioner to exercise such right.3. I do not think this order would exceed his powers under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In his attempt to define those melvaram rights the Magistrate may have included rights which do not really pertain to the melvaram proprietor, and this may be prejudicial to the tenants, but the order against the counterpetitioners has not been made against them as...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kamakshamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad498
ORDER1. There seems to be no provision of law which empowers the High Court to quash the conviction and sentence by a Sessions Judge and order a new trial because some of the material records of the sessions trial have been lost. If the convicted prisoner appeals, then, it will be time enough to interfere, if necessary. There is no provision of law (so far as I know), which enacts that, unless all the records of a case are in the court-house at the time of convicting and sentencing, the conviction and sentence are void, and should be quashed or that the Sessions Judge's trial has been held without jurisdiction or the sentence was passed without jurisdiction. If the convicted prisoner is satisfied that justice has been meted out to her, there is no ground for interference of this Court. Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code only imposes the condition that the judgment should be pronounced in open court and imposes a few other conditions, but such conditions do not include the condi...
Tag this Judgment!Phatmabi Vs. Haji Abdulla Musa Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Mad714; (1914)26MLJ115
Tyabji, J.1. The plaintiff claims mesne profits in respect of certain waqf properties. The real questions involved in the suit and appeal were the subject of some discussion before us but the issues settled by the District Munsif shew that the contention of the plaintiff was that she succeeded to the office of Mutawalli of the waqf properties by hereditary devolution, and that she claimed possession of them on that footing as against the defendant, that the defendant on the other hand set up his own title as Mutawalli on the strength of an appointment by a person calling himself the Kazi, and also by the members of his community. The real question therefore to be decided by us is whether the plaintiff has made out that she was the actual and rightful Mutawalli of the waqf properties for three years succeeding 6th August 1905, and not whether the plaintiff has proved some circumstances which would entitle her claims to bs considered, were the court asked to appoint a Mutawalli of the wa...
Tag this Judgment!Govindachetti and ors. Vs. Perumal Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)25MLJ370
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. In the absence of the Police Sub-Inspector's report of the 22nd June 1913 on the basis of which the Salem Town Sub Magistrate passed his order of the 27th June 1913, I cannot see my way to hold that the said order passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was an order passed without jurisdiction. The said report of the Sub-Inspector of Police is not part of the record sent to us and before we could send for and obtain it the two months during which the order is to remain in force would expire and there would be no use in revising the order after it is spent.2. I would, therefore, dismiss this petition, but I do not think it inappropriate to make some observations with reference to the proceedings of the Lower Courts. The Sub-Magistrate's proceedings of 15th July 1913 lend some justification to the argument addressed to us by the petitioner's learned Vakil that the Sub-Magistrate considered himself legally bound by the ' District Magistrate's orde...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Chetti and ors. Vs. Perumal Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.453a
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. In the absence of the Police Sub-Inspector's report of the 22nd June 1913, on the basis of which the Salem Town Sub-Magistrate passed his order of the 27th June 1913, I cannot see my way to hold that the said order passed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was an order passed without jurisdiction. The said report of the Sub-Inspector of Police is not part of the record sent to us and before we could send for it, the two months during which the order is to remain in force would expire and there would be no use in revising1 the order after it is spent. I would, therefore, dismiss this petition, but I do not think it inappropriate to make some observations with reference to the proceedings of the lower Courts.2. The Sub-Magistrate's proceedings of the 15th July 1913 lend some justification to the argument addressed to us by the petitioners' learned Vakil that the Sub-Magistrate considered himself legally bound by the 'District Magistrate's order which pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›