Chennai Court September 1915 Judgments
In Re: Gontla Krishnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad762(2); 30Ind.Cas.1005
ORDERWilliam Ayling, J.1. Every act in breach of the conditions of the license or permit is a distinct offence and under Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be made the subject of a separate charge and tried separately. The trial together of the four charges framed against petitioner cannot be covered by Sections 234, 235, 236 or 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The conviction is set aside and a re-trial ordered....
Tag this Judgment!Sudalaimuthu Chettiar and ors. Vs. Enan Samban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad775; 31Ind.Cas.367
Phillips, J.1. The facts of the case are set out in my learned colleague's judgment. The points for consideration are.(1) whether the order of Tyabji, J., was correct;(2) if not, what action should be taken by this Court in the question of revising the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.2. On the first point, I also think that Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, even supposing that it is applicable to tills case, does not give this Court power to call for a finding when exercising its powers of revision, although it does give power to call for additional evidence upon which this Court can itself come to a conclusion. I think, therefore, that the learned Judge's order, which apparently was based solely upon the finding submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was not correct. The additional evidence must be weighed by the Court of Revision, and its decision based upon a consideration thereof. I agree, therefore, that the order appealed against cannot be supported.3. In this ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chidipatu Somayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.307
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. A decision passed 'forthwith' under Order XVII, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code is a decision passed on the merits on the materials then before the Court and if it is a decision in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, a review of such a decision is barred by Section 9 itself.2. I am asked to treat this as a petition to revise the decision in the suit itself though it is a petition to revise the order, refusing to grant a review. It was, however, admitted that there is pending in this Court a separate petition already filed to revise the decision in the suit.3. I therefore, dismiss the petition....
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugham Asari and anr. Vs. Siyid Nathadu Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.457
1. The decree in this case directed 'that the 1st defendant do, execute a sale-deed to the plaintiff in respect of the properties described thereunder on receiving the balance of purchase-money, Rs. 250, within one month from this date,' that is, from the date of the decree. The plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent before us, failed to pay the amount and applied for time to be given to him and he was granted a month's time on 29th March 1911. He again failed to comply with the order. That being so, the application must be held to be ineffective. The appellant was to convey the properties only if he received the money which he was entitled to, under the decree. As he was not paid money within the time allowed by the Court, he was quite within his right to refuse to make the conveyance.2. Our attention was drawn to the decision in Ramaswami Kone v. Sundara Kone 17 M.L.J. 495. That was a very similar case and the learned Judges came to the conclusion that an application which was made aft...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramaswami Iyer Vs. the Madras Times Printing and Publishing Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Mad1179; (1915)ILR38Mad991
1. In December 1912, the plaintiff and two other persons were directors of the defendant company, which carries on the business of a newspaper called the 'Madras Times.' The plaintiff had been appointed managing director of the company at a meeting of himself and another director, on the 7th January 1912. At a meeting of the same two directors, on the 31st December 1912, it was resolved that the plaintiff in addition to his duties as managing director should be co-editor of the 'Madras Times.' At a subsequent meeting of the same two directors held on the 28th February 1913, it was resolved that the plaintiff should receive, with effect from the 31st December 1912, a sum of Rs. 250 per mensem, for his duties as co-editor of the 'Madras Times,' and that the above resolution should be in operation for a period of ten years. On the 19th October 1913 a resolution was passed by the same two directors and the third director of the company that the plaintiff should be given, with effect from t...
Tag this Judgment!The Crown Prosecutor Vs. Govindarajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad886
Ayling, J.1. The accused in this case was prosecuted for disorderly behaviour in a place of public resort (to wit, the grounds of the Madras harbour), an offence under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act. He has been acquitted on the ground that the harbour premises do not constitute a place of public resort.2. In our opinion the Presidency Magistrate has taken too narrow a view of the law. It is true that the bye-laws framed under the Port Trust Act provide for the prosecution as trespassers of persons who enter on the harbour premises without having business there or with the ships lying in the harbour, and from the Magistrate's judgment it appears that such people (as he says, mainly coolies, or up-country visitors) are actually prosecuted before him. But it is perfectly clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amended bye-laws printed in Government Order No. 341, Marine, dated 22nd October 1912, that bye-law 22 which provides for the exclusion of the general pub...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Govindarajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.752
1. The accused in this case was prosecuted for disorderly behaviour in a place of public resort (to wit, the grounds of the Madras Harbour), an offence under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act. He has been acquitted on the ground that the harbour premises do not constitute a place of public resort. In our opinion the Presidency Magistrate has taken too narrow a view of the law. It is true that the by-laws framed, under the Port Trust provide for prosecution as trespassers of persons who enter on the harbour premises without having business there or with the ships lying in the harbour: and from the Magistrate's judgment it appears that such people (as he says, mainly coolies, or up-country visitors) are actually prosecuted before him. But it is perfectly clear from the statement of objects and reasons for the amended by-laws printed in G.O. No. 841, Marine, dated 22nd October 1912, that By-law 22 which provides for the exclusion of the general public, was not intended to be enforc...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramaswami Iyer Vs. the Madras Times Printing and Publishing Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.350
Bakewell, J.1. In December 1912, the plaintiff and two other persons were Directors of the defendant Company, which carries on the business of a newspaper called the 'Madras Times.' The plaintiff had been appointed Managing Director of the Company at a meeting of himself and another Director, on the 7th January 1912. At a meeting of the same two Directors, on the 31st December 1912, it was resolved that the plaintiff in addition to his duties as Managing Director should be co-editor of the 'Madras Times.' At a subsequent meeting of the same two Directors held on the 28th February 1913, it was resolved that the plaintiff should receive, with effect from the 31st December 1912, a sum of Rs. 250 per mensem, for his duties as co-editor of the 'Madras Times,' and that the above resolution should be in operation for a period of ten years. On the 19th October 1913 a resolution was passed by the same two Directors and the third Director of the Company that the plaintiff should be given, with e...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesa Mudaly and Two ors. Vs. Ramasami Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Mad882; (1916)ILR39Mad882
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Dharinapuri extending the time fixed for payment of the mortgage money by a decree nisi in a suit for redemption by a puisne mortgagee. The Munsif thinks that the reasons given by the plaintiff in the suit for non-payment of the mortgage money within the time fixed were insufficient and unsatisfactory, but all the same he gave the extension prayed for on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled as a matter of right to redeem until there is a decree for foreclosure absolute even though the time fixed by the decree nisi had passed.2. The power to extend the time for payment of the mortgage money is now regulated by Order XXXIV, Rules 3 and 8, and under the rules, the Court can only extend the time upon good cause shown. This is in accordance with the settled practice in England. Even in cases where the mortgagee sues for foreclosure, extension of time for payment is not given as a matter of co...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesa Mudaly and ors. Vs. Ramasawmi Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.200
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Dharmapuri extending the time fixed for payment of the mortgage-money by a decree nisi in a suit for redemption by a puisne mortgagee. The Munsif thinks that the reasons given by the plaintiff in the suit foi non-payment of the mortgage-money within the time fixed were insufficient and unsatisfactory, but all the same he gave the extension prayed for, on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled as a matter of right to redeem until there is a decree for foreclosure absolute, even though the time fixed by the decree nisi had passed.2. The power to extend the time for payment of the mortgage-money is now regulated by Order XXXIV, Rules Sand 8, and under these rules the Court can only extend the time upon good cause shown. This is in accordance with the settled practice in England. Even in cases where the mortgagee sues for foreclosure extension of time for payment is not given as a matter of co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »