Chennai Court December 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.
Muthusami Nadan and anr. Vs. Kalinga Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1916
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ78
Ayling, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Spencer passed on a petition presented under Section 15 of the Charter Act, (Section 107 of the Government of India Act), for the setting aside of an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order was not without jurisdiction and declined to interfere.2. As observed in Kamal Kutty v. Udayavarma Rajah Valia Rajah of Chirakkal I.L.R. (1912) M. 275 it has never been customary to interfere in cases of this sort under Section 15 of the Charter Act, unless the Magistrate's order was passed without jurisdiction; and we have merely to consider whether that was the case with the order before us.3. The chief ground of attack is that the Magistrate recorded no evidence himself but forwarded the records to a Subordinate Magistrate under Section 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code fo...
Sai Sikandar Rowther Vs. Ghouse MohidIn Marakayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ213
Wallis, C.J.1. We think that Sadasook (Gambir Chund v. Kannayya I.L.R. (1895) M. 96, and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau I.L.R. (1896) M. 232, were rightly decided, and should in any case be allowed as they are decisions on a point of practice which have now stood for many years, and their reversal must seriously affect the settled practice of the court. In Calcutta, Sale, J. was clearly of the same opinion in Sasoon v. Hurrey Das Bhukut I.L.R. (1896) C. 455, and it has since been treated as settled law. Johan Smidt v. Ram Prasad I.L.R. (1911) C. 425. Dealing with the question in the reference, we think that in the cases to which we have been referred in Bombay and in this Court Behram v. Ardeshir I.L.R. (1903) B. 563, Bapuji v. Dastur : (1906)8BOMLR678 and V. Ramasamy Aiyar v. The Madras Times Limited (1915) 30 M.L.J. 207 attention was not sufficiently called to the corresponding changes in the County Courts Act from the first of which the provision as to new trials were taken. As is w...
Tirumalaisami Naidu Vs. Subramanian Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad1009
Oldfield, J.1. The question before us is in its most general form whether the plaintiff, a Court-sale purchaser, whose suit for possession of the property put up for sale has failed, is entitled to recover the purchase money by suit or whether, as the lower Appellate Court held, he can do so only by petition under Order XXI, Rule 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Such a right of suit in cases, to which the present Code can be applied without reservation, was dismissed in Mohideen Imbrahim v. Mahomed Mura Levai : (1912)23MLJ487 , one learned Judge being unwilling to negative it, though expressing no decided opinion, and the other negativing it directly, because the purchaser had no longer a substantive right to recover, but only a statutory right to do so by application in special, circumstances; and the latter opinion was confirmed obiter in Parvathi Ammal v. Govindasami Pillai I.L.R. (1916) Mad. 803. The contrary view however has been taken in Rustomji Ardeshir Irani v. Vinayak Ganga...
Tirumalaisami Naidu Vs. Subramaniam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1916
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.109
Oldfield, J.1. The question before us is in its most general form, whether the plaintiff, a Court-sale purchaser, whose suit for possession of the property put up for sale has failed, is entitled to recover the purchase money by suit or whether, as the lower Appellate Court held, he can do so only by petition under Order XXI, Rule 93, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Such a right of suit, in cases to which the present Code can be applied without reservation, was dismissed in Mohideen Ibrahim v. Mahamed Merra, Lerrai 17 Ind. Cas. 437 one learned Judge being unwilling to negative it, though expressing no decided opinion, and the other negative it directly, because the purchaser had no longer a substantive right to recover, but only a statutory right to do so by application in special circumstances; and the latter opinion was confirmed obiter in Parvathi Ammal v. Govindasmi Pillai 30 Ind. Cas. 827 : (1915) M.W.N. 797. The contrary view, however, has been taken in Rustomji Vinayak Gangadhar ...
In Re: Dakshinamoorthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.672
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The Magistrate has not proceeded to enquire into this case of public nuisance in the manner provided by Section 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the appearance of the person showing cause against the order, the Magistrate should proceed to take evidence in support of the order before the counter-petitioner is called upon to produce his evidence to meet it see Hingu v. Emperor 31 A. D 453 : 10 CrI. L. J. 297. and Doraiswamy Mudaliar v. Sudarsana Chariar 27 Ind. Cas. 767 . In this case at the enquiry none but the defence witnesses were examined. The order does not satisfy the requirements of the section. I set it aside and refer the matter back to the Magistrate to proceed according to law....
The Rajah of CochIn Represented by the Dewan J.W. Bhore, Esquire, I.C. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ295
John Wallis, C.J.1. In considering whether a kanomdar had a right to cut and carry away trees planted by himself the Full Bench in Vasudevan Nambudripad v. Valia Chathu Achan I.L.R. (1900) M. 47, held that, whether the case was treated as governed by the Transfer of Property Act or not, the kanomdar had such a right in the absence of a contract or custom to the contrary, and that Madras Act I of 1900 did not deprive him of it by requiring him to keep the trees upon the holding and have compensation assessed upon them. The case contains no reference to Section 19, and there was no occasion for the learned Judges to consider whether a contract not to cut and remove trees without the landlord's permission and to pay a fee when such permission was granted was invalid under that section as taking away or limiting the tenants right to make improvements. That section was no doubt intended to secure the tenant's right to make improvements as well as to claim compensation for them, and strikes ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Mantripragada Markondeyulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.521
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The accused in this case has been charged with the offence of having printed and published for sale a Telugu booklet named `Vidi Natakam' The author is said to be Srinadha who lived in the middle of the 15th century, and who has written some classical books in the Telugu language. Certain stanzas in this book have been selected by the prosecution as having a tendency to deprave and to corrupt the morals of the readers. The defence was that the author was a writer of repute, that the diction in which the stanzas are written is not easily understandable by the ordinary reader, that they are of artistic and literary merit, and that there is nothing in the verses selected which could be taken exception to. It was also stated that the book has gone through a number of editions and that the republication was not an offence. The Magistrate agreeing with the defence set up acquitted the accused. The Government have appealed.2. I am of opinion that the acquittal is wrong. ...
Nimmala Mahankali, Minor by Guardian Gorri Gangyya Vs. Kallakuri Seeth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.268; (1917)32MLJ455
1. The decree in the Original Suit was passed on the 28th September 1908. It gave the judgment debtor six months to pay the amount of the decree : consequently the decree-holder could have executed the decree only after the 28th March 1909. On the 1st January 1909, the new Code of Civil Procedure came into force. Order XXXIV of the Code enacted new rules of procedure for the execution of mortgage-decree Rs. Against the decree of the first Court, the decree holder appealed first to the District Judge and then to this Court. The final decree on second appeal was passed on the 29th July 1910. An application for execution was presented on the 18th of July 1913, that is, within three years of the final appellate decree. The present application was made on the 19th August 1914 for a decree absolute. It was objected to by the defendant that this application was barred by time. The Subordinate Judge disallowed the objection and granted execution. Hence the appeal.2. The first point taken by Mr...
A.S. Roderigues Vs. N.P.R.M.P.R.M. Ramasami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1916
Reported in: (1917)32MLJ253
1. This question has been decided in England under the corresponding Section 48 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 in 1897 by Vaughan Williams, J., in In re Paine: Ex-parte Read (1897) 1 Q.B. 122 and in 1900 by Buckley, J., (now Lord Wrenbury) in hire Blackpool Motor Car Co. Limited : Hamilton v. Blackpool Motor Car Co. Limited (1901) 1 Ch. 77. In the latter case the learned Judge after considering all the authorities including the dicta in In re Mills : Ex-parte The Official Receiver 58 Law Times 871, held following the earlier decision that a surety being entitled to prove in bankruptcy must be considered a creditor for the purpose of fraudulent preference under Section 48 of the Act of 1883. That decision has not since been questioned in England and may we think be accepted as settled law. This was apparently the view taken when the new consolidated Bankruptcy Act of 1914 was passed. The defect disclosed in Section 48 of the Act of 1883 by the decisions in In re Mills : Ex parte The Offi...
A.S. Roderiques Vs. N.P.R.M.P.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar and the Official ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR40Mad783
1. This question has been decided in England under the corresponding Section 48 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 in 1897 by Vaughan Williams, J., in In re Paine: Ex parte Read (1897) 1 Q.B., 122 and in 1900 by Bockley, J. (now Lord Wrenbury, in In re Blackpool Motor Car Company, Limited: Hamilton v. Blackpool Motor Car Company, Limited (1899) A.C. 419 In the latter case, the learned Judge after considering all the authorities including the dicta in In re Mills; Ex parte The Official Receiver (1888) 5 Morrell, 55 held following the earlier decision, that a surety being entitled to prove in bankruptcy, must be considered a creditor for the purposes of fraudulent preference, under Section 48 of the Act of 1883. That decision has not since been questioned in England and may we think be accepted as settled law. This was apparently the view taken when the new consolidated Bankruptcy Act of 1914 was passed. The defect disclosed in Section 48 of the Act of 1883 by the decisions in In re Mills; Ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »