Chennai Court July 1915 Judgments
Ullathil Kolathil Nethiri Menon Vs. Mullapulli Gopalan Nair and Thirte ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad692; (1916)ILR39Mad597
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The facts of this case are reasonably clear, and can be shortly stated as follows: Defendants Nos. 9 to 13 are the uralans or trustees of a temple known as the Tiruvegapura Devaswom, and the lands referred to in the suit are the property of the temple, and at the period material to this suit the management of the property of the temple was vested in the whole body of uralans. In 1904 the lands in question in this suit were mortgaged to the first defendant on behalf of the tavazhi of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 with a corresponding obligation on them to pay certain rents and revenues while in possession to the uralans (Exhibit A). In this state of things, the ninth defendant, who appears for some reason to have been on bad terms with his fellow uralans, brought a suit against them, obtained a decree, and attached in execution the moveables of the temple, including the vessels and jewels necessary for the performance of the daily worship. It thereupon became an urgent mat...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Marutha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1226(1); 30Ind.Cas.158
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I am unable to uphold the conviction in this case. It is common ground that a depot-keeper like the accused is allowed to have arrack of U.P. 32 degrees. When the cask was examined on the 16th January 1914, the arrack in it was of the strength of U.P., 32'5. The question for decision is whether this weakening in the strength of the arrach to the extent of five pints is due to dilution. Exhibit A, the license in the case, shows that it is possible that arrack may lose strength to the extent of one degree from natural causes. Further, when the Assistant Commissioner sealed the cask on the 28th April 1914, he found the arrack to be U. P. 314. When the cask was produced in Court and examined on the 23rd July it was found to be 318. There is no suggestion that the seals were tampered with between these two dates. It has also to be remembered that there had been heavy sales before the date of the offence. It is more likely that the difference of live pints was due ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramasamy Gounden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad648; 30Ind.Cas.434
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I am wholly unable to understand how on the facts stated by the Magistrate any offence was committed under Section 228, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate says that the proceedings in his Court were interrupted by the audible remark made by the accused. That is not enough to convict the accused. The Court has to be satisfied that the accused intentionally offered interruption to the Court. There are no materials on which a Magistrate could have come to the conclusion that the accused intended to insult him, or to interrupt his proceedings. Courts who take action under Section 228 ought not to give room for the belief that they are unduly sensitive about their dignity. In cases coming under section, the Court is both necessary to see that the powers are used only in exceptional cases. This is not the first instance in which the Magistrate took action under this section. Constant proceedings of this character will have a tendency to interfere with the proper adm...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Victor D. Souza
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1155(1); 30Ind.Cas.440
ORDER1. The marriage between P.W. No. 2 is sufficiently proved, and is not in dispute. The facts found do not amount in law to connivance. It is argued that accused should have been asked if he were an European British subject under Section 454(2), Criminal Procedure Code, but having regard to Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code, this, even if correct, is not a sufficient ground for interference.2. No other point is argued.3. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hawkins, General Manager, Indian Aluminium Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.444
ORDER1. In making die reference the Presidency Magistrate should have distinctly formulated the questions of law which he referred for our opinion.2. So far as we can deduce them from his letter of reference, they are two in number.(1) Whether the term 'every person' in Section 33 of Act IX of 1910 is confined to persons licensed under Parts II and III of the Act?(2) Whether Section 33 is confined to cases in which the accident actually results in personal injury or death?3. Our answer to both questions is 'No.' As regards the second we may add that the wording of the section is perfectly clear and specifies cases likely to have resulted in loss of life or personal injury as well as those which actually so resulted. Whether such a result was likely in any case in which it did not actually ensue is a question of fact to be determined with reference to the surrounding circumstances....
Tag this Judgment!O.M. Nagoor Meera Sahib Vs. Sookulal Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad871; 30Ind.Cas.488
1. In a recent case Venkataramanjulu Naidu v. Ramaswami Naidu 30 Ind. Cas. 353 we followed the decisions in Haladkar Maiti v. Choytonna Maiti 7 C.W.N. 547 and Ramdin Bania v. Sew Baksk Singh 6 Ind. Cas. 473 and held that the Court could exercise revisionary jurisdiction over the Presidency Small Cause Court.2. We have been shown no reason now for taking a different view. It is argued that in the present case there could be no revision, because respondent-plaintiff had an appeal open to him under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. But we follow the decisions of Sadasook Gambir Chand v. Kannayya 19 M.k 96 and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau 21 M.k 232 and hold that the jurisdiction under Section 38 is not of an appellate nature. In these circumstances we think that the learned Judge had jurisdiction to pass his order.3. We have been shown no reason for dissenting from that order, or the learned Judge's exercise of his discretion in passing it.4. The Letters Patent Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Ullattil Kalathil Nethiri Menon Vs. Mullapulli Gopalan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.713
1. The facts of this case are reasonably clear, and can be shortly stated as follows: Defendants Nos. 9 to 13 are the uralans or trustees of a temple known as the Tiruvegapura Devaswami, and the lands referred to in the suit are the property of the temple, and at the period material to this suit the management of the property of the temple was vested in the whole body of uralans. In 1904 the lands in question in this case were mortgaged to the 1st defendant on behalf of the tavazhi of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 with a corresponding obligation on them to pay certain rents and revenues while in possession to the uralans (Exhibit A). In this state of things, the 9th defendant, who appears for some reason to have been on bad terms with his fellow uralans, brought a suit against them, obtained a decree, and attached in execution the moveables of the temple, including the vessels and jewels necessary for the performance of the daily worship. It thereupon became an urgent matter to free the vesse...
Tag this Judgment!Chemikkala Chinna Bali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1168(1); 31Ind.Cas.176a
ORDERSeshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The conviction is clearly wrong. As pointed out by this Court on a previous occasion, the Magistrate was bound to give notice to the Police Inspector in charge of the case before disposing of it.2. The conviction is set aside. I direct the Magistrate to re-hear the appeal after giving notice to the Inspector....
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Amma Vs. Venkappa Ullura
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad1167; 33Ind.Cas.234
Oldfileld, J.1. The attachment was of the crop raised on one portion of the land included in the patta for an arrear under the patta. It was, therefore, legal and the application of Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act was justified.2. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.Sadasiya Aiyar, J.3. I agree. I only wish to guard myself from being understood to hold that if the attachment was found to be illegal, the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed, that is, to hold that Section 69 of the Contract Act will not be applicable in that contingency....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A. Shakoor Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad654; 30Ind.Cas.438a
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I think that the accused need not have been asked to give security for more than one year, which is contemplated by the Legislature as the longest limit to be adopted except in very bad cases.2. I, therefore, reduce such period to one year and the period to be mentioned in the consequent order of imprisonment on default to one year.3. The error of the Magistrate in committing the accused to prison pending this Court's orders instead of directing his detention in prison is noted. The period for which the accused has already been in prison will be treated as having boon spent in prison, though the order of committal passed just now....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »