Chennai Court May 1914 Judgments
Gogi Padmarajappa and anr. Vs. Madduru Venkatasubbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad311; 24Ind.Cas.423
Ayling, J.1. The only question is whether the District Munsif was right in holding that the suit was not cognizable by his Court under Section 20(e) of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The suit is for recovery of balance due on account. The defendant (sic) in Guntur is said to have purchased gram from the plaintiffs doing business in Bellary. It appears that twenty-five bags of gram were despatched by the plaintiffs at Bellary to the defendant at Guntur by railway on the defendant's order. It is not alleged that the gram did not reach the defendant : in fact it is clear from the defendant's written statement that it did reach him. For nine bags the Railway receipt was issued in the defendant's own name : for sixteen bags it was issued in the plaintiffs' name, but endorsed in the defendant's name so as to enable him to take delivery. The goods were not insured.3. It appears to me on these facts that Section 91 of the Indian Contract Act applies : and that delivery to the Railway Company as a...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarama Aiyar and anr. Vs. Mariya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad78; 24Ind.Cas.967
ORDER1. This case arises out of a dispute between the petitioners and one Mariya Pillai (counter-petitioner), regarding the possession of certain lands. On 17th January 1914, Mariya Pillai filed a petition asking for an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioners to abstain from interfering with his possession. This petition is said to have boon forwarded for report to the Tiruvalur Sub-Inspector of Police. He submitted a report on 2nd February 1914. Meantime on 24th January 101.4 Mariya Pillai pat in another petitionobjecting to the course of the Police inquiry, and asking that harvest of the crops by the present petitioners should be stopped, that the crops already harvested should be taken possession of by the Village Munsif, that the petitioners should be ordered not to interfere with the lands and that an early inquiry should be held.2. On this, the Magistrate passed the following order on 24th January 1914 : 'issue notice under Section 141 ...
Tag this Judgment!Nachimuthu Chetti Vs. Muthusami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.107; (1914)27MLJ37
ORDERAyling, J.1. The petitioner gave information to the Village Magistrate of Ayakudi to the effect that one Muthusami Chetti had stolen a load of cotton belonging to him. The Village Magistrate sent a report to the police under Section 45(c) Cr.P.C. The police put in a charge sheet under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, before the 2nd Class Magistrate of Palni against Muthusami Chetti. The case ended in discharge and the petitioner was ordered to pay compensation under Section 250 of the Cr.P.C.2. It is contended that the order is illegal in as much as the case was not instituted by complaint as defined in this Code or upon information given to a Police Officer or to a Magistrate' Vide Section 250 Cr.P.C.3. This view is supported by some authority Vide King Emperor v. Thammana Reddi I.L.R. (1901) M. 667 and also two later cases. In re Arulanandham : (1912)22MLJ138 and an unreported case (Criminal Revision case No. 627 of 1913). On the other hand there is a Full Bench decision of...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Aiyar and Two ors. Vs. Saminatha Aiyr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR38Mad797
Ayling, J.1. The sole ground on which we are asked to revise the decision of the Lower Appellate Court in this case is that all the Bench Magistrates who were present at the earlier stages of the case did not take part in the decision thereof or sign the judgment, It is not denied that the two Magistrates who did sign the judgment were present throughout all the earlier hearings and heard all the evidence or that they constituted a legal quorum.2. I see no reason to differ from the view taken in Karuppana Nadan v. Chairman, Madura Municipality I.L.R. (1898) Mad. 246, which is clear authority for holding that the conviction is not illegal. This conflicts with no provision of law, and no consideration of justice or expediency. The contrary view would materially hamper the work of Benches of Magistrates in all but the very simplest cases. I do not think any argument can be based on a supposed analogy with the case of a jury, or a body of arbitrators. The law and practice in England appear...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Oomayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad50(1); 25Ind.Cas.330
ORDER1. The accused in this case, a deaf-mute, has been convicted of theft of a box of clothes and effects belonging to a railway guard. The case has been referred for orders under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. We do not think the conviction can be sustained. The only evidence against accused is that a week after the theft, accused was caught by the guard walking past his quarters and wearing a suit of pyjamas which formed part of the stolen property. In the case of an ordinary individual it Would be open to the Court to apply the presumption authorised in Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, i.e., to infer from his recent possession of stolen property, unless he could explain his possession, that he was either the thief or a dishonest receiver guilty under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.3. But in the present case it is impossible to draw such an inference, because accused's infirmity prevents him from putting forward any explanation he may have to offer. N...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatrama Iyer and ors. Vs. Swamesnath Aiyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.957
ORDERAyling, J.1. The sole ground on which we are asked to revise the decision of the lower Appellate Court in this case is that all the Bench Magistrates who were present at the earlier stages of the case did not take part in the decision thereof or sign the judgment. It is not denied that the two Magistrates who did sign the judgment were present throughout all the earlier hearings and heard all the evidence or that they constituted a legal quorum. I see no reason to differ from the view taken in Karuppana Nadan v. Chairman, Madura, Municipality 21 M. 246 : 2 Weir 217., which is clear authority for holding that the conviction is not illegal. This conflicts with no provision of law, and no consideration of justice or expediency. The contrary view would materially hamper the work of Benches of Magistrates in all but the very simplest cases. I do not think any argument can be based on a supposed analogy with the case of a Jury or a body of Arbitrators. The law and practice in England ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›