Chennai Court October 1916 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.
In Re: Venkatakrishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.294; (1916)31MLJ837
ORDER1. The point for decision is whether an appeal lies to the Sessions Judge Or the District Magistrate at the instance of a person against whom a non-appealable sentence has been passed, on the ground that appealable sentences have been passed against, others jointly tried with him. Section 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks of an 'appeal by a convicted person in cases in which a Court of Session or the District Magistrate or other Magistrate of the first class passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month only, or of fine not exceeding Rs. 50 only, or of whipping only. ' The argument is that, if in the case there is an appealable sentence against any one, the whole case is appealable. In our opinion, although for the sake of convenience, the Code, under certain restrictions, provides that there can be a joint trial, it must be taken that there is a separate case as against each of the accused dealt with in the joint trial. Therefore the reference in Section 41...
Dodda Sannekappa and anr. Vs. Sakravva and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.831
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a suit by a person claiming as reversioner for various reliefs one of them being the appointment of a Receiver to preserve the property from being further wasted by the heiress in possession. He also claims a declaration that certain mortgages a partition deed and two decrees obtained by consent to all of which he was a party represented by his guardian should be declared not binding on him. In so far as he asks for a declaration that the transactions to which he was a party should be declared not binding on him, the real relief he wants is to set aside all those transactions in so far as he is concerned. This may be incapable of precise valuation and the plaintiff is entitled to value the reliefs which he seeks in respect of these matters and pay ad valorem duty on the value of the relief as fixed by him in his plaint. Arunachalam chetty v. Rangasamy Filial 28 Ind. Cas. 79 : 28 M.L.J. 118 : (1915) m.W.N. 118 : 17 M.L.T. 154, That is what he has been as...
Krishnappa Naidu and anr. Vs. Alamelu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.855
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. The order sought to be revised is one under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the Magistrate declared that the respondent Alamelu Ammal was in possession of certain land in dispute. It is argued that the Magistrate's order was without jurisdiction and should be set aside under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, which corresponds to Section 15 of the Charter Act now repealed, because (1) the Magistrate has not stated his grounds for thinking that a breach of the peace concerning this land was likely to occur and (2) the Magistrate has not found that the respondent was in possession with reference to the date of his first order under Section 145, Clause (1).2. As regards the first objection, the copy of the order served on the petitioner shows that the Magistrate was satisfied as to the likelihood of the breach of the peace from the Police report; the order says so. I think this is a sufficient compliance with the section. If the Magistra...
In Re: Paruchury Venkatappayya Choudari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.872
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. It seems to me that the prosecution of the accused on the charge of a cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been misconceived. He and prosecution 1st witness were partners, and there was a debt due by prosecution 5th witness to that partnership. The prosecution case is that the partnership has been dissolved by Exhibit A and that the accused had no right under it to collect any debts due to that partnership, and that in that state of facts the accused obtained from prosecution 5th witness the repayment of the debt due to the partnership giving up a portion and that he has not paid over the money so collected to the partnership or informed prosecution 1st witness about it and thus committed the offence charged. The person said to be cheated is prosecution 5th witness. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines what cheating is. It requires that the person, said to have been cheated, should have been deceived and dishonestly or fraudulently induced...
Baluswami Iyer and anr. Vs. Venkitasamy Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ24
Burn, J.1. The facts of this case, as far as it is necessary to state them, are as follows:-On 17th March 1891, 2nd plaintiff obtained a permanent lease Exhibit A of certain land within the limits of Madura town from the Matathipathi of Sri Vyasaraya Mutt the seat of which is in the state of Mysore. 2nd plaintiff was a near relative of the grantor. The rent reserved was a fixed sum of Rs. 21 per annum. The grantor died shortly after the execution of Exhibit A. His successor held office till 1906 when 25th defendant became head of the Mutt. In 1902, 2nd plaintiff sublet (Exhibits D and D 1) to 1st defendant for a period of ten years and in 1905, 2nd plaintiff and his son 3rd plaintiff sold their rights under Exhibit A to 1st plaintiff (Exhibit E). From 1905 the properties controlled by the heads of the mutt were managed by the Diwan of Mysore under powers of attorney executed by the Matathipithis and the Diwan in turn empowered defendants' 1st witness to conduct the management. In 1908 ...
Balaswamy Ayyar and Two ors. Vs. Venkataswamy Naicken and Twenty-seven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad745
Burn, J.1. The facts of this case, as far as it is necessary to state them, are as follows:2. On 17th March 1891, the second plaintiff obtained a permanent lease (Exhibit A) of certain land within the limits of Madura town from the Matathipathi of Sri Vyasaraya Mutt the seat of which is in the State of Mysore. The second plaintiff was a near relative of the grantor. The rent reserved was a fixed sum, Its. 24 per annum. The grantor died shortly after the execution of Exhibit A. His successor held office till 1906 when the twenty-sixth defendant became head of the mutt. In 1902, the second plaintiff sublet (Exhibits D and D 1) to first defendant for a period of ten years, and in 1905, the second plaintiff and his son the third plaintiff sold their rights, under Exhibit A to first plaintiff (Exhibit E). From 1905, the properties controlled by the heads of the mutt were managed by the Diwan of Mysore, under powers of attorney executed by the matathipathis, and the Diwan in turn empowered d...
Baluswami Aiyer and anr. Vs. Venkitaswamy Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.531
Burn, J.1. The facts of this case, as far as it is necessary to state them, are as follows:-On 17th March 1891, 2nd plaintiff obtained a permanent lease Exhibit A of certain land within the limits of Madura town from the matathipathi of Sri Vyasaraya mutt the seat of which is in the State of Mysore. Second plaintiff was a near relative of the grantor. The rent reserved was a fixed sum of Rs. 24 per annum. The grantor died shortly after the execution of Exhibit A. His successor held office till 1906 when 26th defendant became the head of the mutt. In 1902, 2nd plaintiff sublet (Exhibits D and D1) to 1st defendant for a period of ten years and in 1905, 2nd plaintiff and his son 3rd plaintiff sold their rights under Exhibit A to 1st plaintiff (Exhibit E). From 1905 the properties controlled by the heads of the mutt were managed by the Diwan of Mysore under powers-of-attorney executed by the matathipathis and the Diwan in turn empowered defendants' 1st witness to conduct the management. In...
In Re: Mr. Annie Besant
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ151
ORDERAbdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. This petition is under Sections 108 and 107 of the Government of India Act, 5 and 6 George V.C. 61 and Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking us to revise the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate requiring deposit of security from the petitioner. I have already dealt with the contention of Mrs. Annie Besant in the petition under Section 17 of the Press Act and held that the order was made in excess of the power conferred on the Magistrate but that there was no provision in the Press Act itself which would enable us to revise the order.2. Under Section 105 of the Government of India Act which continues in this High Court all the powers and authority already vested in it we are asked to quash the proceedings of the Magistrate by means of a writ of certiorari. The old Supreme Court of Madras which is now absorbed in the High Court had all the jurisdiction and authority of the Court of the King's Bench in England which included the pow...
Mrs. Annie Besant Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.525
Abdur Rahim, Offg, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 17 of the Indian Press Act of 1910 by Mrs. Annie Besant, the keeper and printer of the 'New India' Printing Works, and the Editor of the news paper, 'New India.' The applicant seeks to have set aside an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras, dated 22nd May 1916, requiring her to deposit security of Rs. 2,000 under Section 3 (1) of the Act an order of the Governor-in-Council, dated 25th August 1916, declaring under Section 4(1) the security so deposited and all copies of 'New India' wherever found to be forfeited to His Majesty. No copies of 'New India,' it may be mentioned, have actually been seized.2. The order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate is attacked, firstly, on the ground that inasmuch as the press and the newspaper in question were in existence before the passing of the Press Act under the names and styles respectively of The Standard Press' and 'The Madras Standard,' the fact that the applicant, hav...
Rasa Goundan Vs. Pichamuthu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1916
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.539
1. In this case the suit was filed against a dead person, There was, therefore, really no suit at all and in such case I do not think there was any power of amendment in the lower Court The present case is covered by the authority of the decision in Veerappa Chetty v Ponnan 31 M.S 86. The learned Pleader for the respondent contends that the new Code provides for such, amendent. I do not agree a he decision of the lower Court is reverse and the suit is dismissed with coats here and in the lower Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »