Chennai Court December 1915 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.
V. Ramasamy Aiyar Vs. the Madras Times Printing and Publishing Co., Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.929
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a reference from the Presidency Small Cause Court made under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. Section 69(1) says that 'if two or more Judges of the Small Cause Court sit together in any suit and differ in their opinion as to any question of law, the Small Cause Court shall draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which there is a difference of opinion and refer such statement with its full opinion on the point for the opinion of the High Court.' (2) 'When the Small Cause Court refers any question for the opinion of the High Court as provided in Sub-section (1), it shall either reserve judgment or give judgment contingent upon such opinion.'2. The present reference is made by the Small Cause Court (of its own motion I take it), three Judges of the Small Cause Court, sitting together to decide an application made by the plaintiff under Section 38 in a contested suit, having differed in their opinions on the two questio...
Chantan Vs. C. Mathu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad957
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This petition raises a question of the interpretation of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is contended before us by the learned pleader who appeared for the petitioner that his client was not liable to any order for the maintenance of his four children because they are entitled to maintenance from their mother's tavazhi and are in fact being maintained; that Section 488 compels the father to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate child 'unable to maintain itself.' The words 'unable to maintain itself,' it is pointed out, have been interpreted in this Court by Sadasiva Ayyar, J., In re Parathy Valappil Moideen (1913) M.W.N. 997 to mean that the child should be physically unable to earn a livelihood, and that if the child is not of sufficient maturity to earn a livelihood, then even if that child belongs to a well-to-do tarwad which is liable for its maintenance, the liability of the father under Section 488 is not taken away. With all respect to the lear...
In Re: Appadurai Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.158
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. The subject-matter of the charge out of which Criminal Revision Case No. 207 arises was a gross sum of Rs. 2,738 which was said to have been misappropriated by the 1st accused, who is petitioner before us, during the period from 18th March 1911 to the 26th October 1911. The subject-matter of the charge in the case out of which Criminal Revision Case No. 203 has arisen, is another gross sum which is said to have been misappropriated by the same accused between the 14th April 1911 and 26th October 1911. So that the period included in the latter case is entirely covered by the period comprised in the former charge. The 1st accused was employed by a firm, and was in charge of the accounts and the cash of the firm during the above period, and he was charged with having misappropriated the above sums of money in collusion with two other men who have been acquitted on appeal by the Sessions Judge.2. In Criminal Revision Case No. 207, it is first of all argued on the mer...
M. Chantan Vs. Chakkapayyan Mathu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.144
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. This petition raises a question of the interpretation of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is contended before us by the learned Pleader who appears for the petitioner, that he was not liable to any order for the maintenance of his four children because they are entitled to maintenance from their mother's tavazhi and are in fact being maintained by that tavazhi. Section 488 compels the father to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate child 'unable to maintain itself'. The words unable to maintain itself', it is pointed out, have been interpreted in this Court by Sadasiva Aiyar, J., in In re Parathy Valappil Moideen 21 Ind. Cas. 489; 14 M.L.T. 223; 14 CrI. L.J. 597, to mean that the child should be physically unable to earn a livelihood; and if the child is not of sufficient maturity to earn a livelihood, then even if that child belongs to a well-to-do tarwad which is liable for its maintenance, the liability of the father under Section 488 is not ta...
Emperor Vs. P.R.S. Muthia Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.638
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The accused in this case is a Nattukottai Chetty; and as stated by himself, be is a fairly well-to-do man. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The finding is that he brought a false charge against some persons and those persons have been acquitted. The Magistrate, taking into consideration the age of the accused who is said to be about 65 years and, I take it, also the circumstances of the case, held that the line imposed would be sufficient punishment. It may be that I might have thought that the accused deserved a somewhat severer punishment, if I had tried the case originally. But I am not inclined in revision to interfere with the discretion of the Magistrate and to enhance the sentence.Ayling, J.2. The accused in this case, a wealthy Nattukottai Chetti, brought a maliciously false charge of rioting against a man, who is proved to have been in Burma at the time of the alleged offence. He has b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›