Chennai Court April 1917 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.
C. Iyavoo Chetty Trading Under the Name and Style of Ripon and Co. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad578(1); 41Ind.Cas.661
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. I have no hesitation in holding that the Magistrate acted in a very high. handed manner in issuing the search warrant. The affidavit in support of the application is a very meagre one. It does not state when the applicant became aware of the offence complained of: it gives the opinion of the deponent that a summons may not have the desired effect.2. The Magistrate should, under the circumstances, have asked for further proof from the complainant before issuing the warrant. He seems to have ignored the existence of Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the limitations it places upon his powers to issue a search warrant. He has recorded no reasons for taking the unusual step of issuing a search warrant in the first instance. It is desirable to draw his attention to the fact that the act of issuing a search warrant is a judicial act, as pointed out in Mahomed Jackariah and Co. v. Ahmed Mahomed 15 C. 109 : 12 Ind. Jur. 259 : 7 Ind. Dec. 658. and that it was...
Kota Chinna Lakshmiah Vs. Nalam Viswanatham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad568; 42Ind.Cas.357
1. The defendant asked the plaintiff who is a merchant at Masulipatam to buy for him 1,000 bags or paddy. This was in February 1909. He asked him to buy at the rate of Rs. 4-15-0 per bag or as much less as he could get it for, and he was informed that the paddy had been bought. Then it appears that the plaintiff sold 500 bags of paddy at the rate of Rs. 4-8-0 to a third party, and the remaining 500 bags he bought for himself at the same rate. It appears that the plaintiff did not buy 1,000 bags from a third person, but purported to buy from himself. The defendant did not know of this fact at all, nor did he know that the plaintiff bought 500 bags of paddy for himself.2. It was apparently contended in both the lower Courts on behalf of the defendant that Section 236 of the Indian Contract Act applied and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. That section says: A person with whom a contract has been entered into in the character of agent is not entitled to require the...
P.R. Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. M.D. Narayana Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1917
Reported in: (1917)33MLJ539
1. So far as I am able to see there are no merits in these cases. But I have to deal with the question of law which is one of considerable importance and argued before me; my conclusion is that the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to order execution of the decree, and also that he acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction by directing a warrant to issue without giving the petitioner previous notice of the application. The facts necessary for the disposal of these two petitions are these. A decree was obtained in the District Munsif's Court of Mysore in 1908. It was transferred for execution to the Small Cause Court, Madras in October 1915. As the decree holder did not take steps, his first application was dismissed in November 1915. A second application was presented on the 13th December 1915, and without notice to the petitioner, the arrest of the petitioner (judgment-debtor) was ordered on the 21st December 1915; thereupon he paid the amount of the...
Kolandai Velu and anr. Vs. Rev. J. Dequidt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.664; (1917)33MLJ113
1 We are of opinion that the decisions in 6 M.H.C.R. App. XX and Queen Empress v. Yohan I.L.R. (1892) M. 391 which were accepted in Queen Empress v. Paul I.L.R. (1896) M. 12 were rightly decided. In our opinion the Act was intended to apply to the marriages of all Christians in India, including marriages where only one of the parties is a Christian. Section 4 expressly says that ' any marriage between persons, one or both of whom is or are a Christian or Christians, shall be solemnized in accordance with the provisions of the next following section; and any such marriage solemnized otherwise than in accordance with such provisions shall be void;' and Section 68 merely provides a penalty for solemnizing or professing to solemnize such a marriage contrary to the provisions of the Act. Offences under the section may vary very widely in gravity, and it has been considered necessary, as in England, to provide very heavy maximum sentence which would be wholly inapplicable in such a case as t...
Janaki Ammal Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad626; 41Ind.Cas.629; (1917)33MLJ300
1. The first objection taken to the transmission of the decree of the Privy Council for execution is that the original order in Council has not been filed in this Court and therefore there is no 'certified copy' which should accompany the application for execution as required by Order XLV, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The facts set out in C.M.P. No. 460 of 1917 and the affidavit of the petitioner explain how the original order has miscarried and has not yet reached the petitioner. The order was passed about the end of July 1916 and since the successful appellant before the Privy Council has not yet received the original order, he has put in a plain printed copy of the order in Council along with his petition and asks us to transmit the decree for execution to the lower Court.2. We think the principle of the decision of the Privy Council in Hurrischandra Chowdhry v. Kali Sundari Debi (1882) L.R. 10 I.A. 4 : : I.L.R. 9 C. 482 applies to a case like this. As pointed out t...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad516; 42Ind.Cas.697; (1917)33MLJ415
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Secretary of State for India in Council against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tinneyelly in a case in which the right of the Government to levy water cess on 33 and odd acres of land in the inam village of Vadagarai belonging to the plaintiff-respondent is in dispute. The Government claims the right to levy cess on the allegation (paragraph 2 of the written statement) that the waters of a Government channel called Karimandy Ammankal mingled with the water in the Shamalanadhi river more generally known as Pachayar which supplies the channel and the tanks by means of which the plaintiff's village is irrigated, and that they are entitled to charge water rate on any land cultivated in excess of the quantity which was under cultivation at the time of the enfranchisement and confirmation of the inam in 1864-65. It is then claimed (paragraph 4 of the written statement) that the river Pachayar itself belongs to the Government. On the...
In Re: Venkataranga Josiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad481; 40Ind.Cas.291
ORDER1. In this case the first point for consideration is whether the charge under Section 409 of the Penal Code against the accused Venkataranga Josiar can be proceeded with inasmuch as he had been previously tried by a Magistrate with second class powers upon the same facts for an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code and acquitted.2. We think Section 403, Sub-section 4, Criminal Procedure Code, applies; it states that, if a person has either been acquitted or convicted of an offence but the same facts disclose an offence which could not be tried by the first Magistrate, then the previous acquittal or conviction is no bar to further proceedings for a more serious offence. The words of the Sub-section are 'A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first t...
thenal Ammal and anr. Vs. Sokkammal and Forty-six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad656; (1918)ILR41Mad233
1. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Narasimha Ayyangar that no Second Appeal lies as the compromise was recorded without protest and as subsequently a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. This objection should be overruled, as the very foundation of the compromise, namely the authority to enter into it, is impeached. Following Ayyagiri Veerasalingam v. Koovur Basivi Reddi (1915) 27 M.L.J 173 we hold that the appeal is competent. The Courts below have held that the plaintiffs were bound by the compromise as the vakalat given by them to their vakil expressly enabled him to enter into a compromise. We do not think that the word supports this conclusion. We understand the expression 'to mean' that the vakil is to do certain acts when and if the occasion arises. The acts themselves are subsequently enumerated. They are (a) to sign the petition for entering into the compromise or for withdrawing the suit, and (b) to sign the final compromise petition to the Court. These two e...
thenal Ammal and anr. Vs. Sokkammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.429
1. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Narasimha Aiyangar that no second appeal lies as the compromise was recorded without protest and as subsequently a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. This objection should be overruled, as the very foundation of the compromise, namely, the authority to enter into it is impeached.2. Following Auyagiri Veerasalingam v. Kovvuri, Basivireddi 25 Ind. Cas. 56 : 27 M. L. J. 173 : 16 M. L. T. 125 : 1 L. W. 541. we hold that the appeal is competent.3. The Courts below have held that the plaintiffs were bound by the compromise as the takalat given by them to their Vakil expressly enabled him to enter into a compromise. We do not think that the word avasiamanal (if necessary) supports this conclusion. We understand the expression to mean that the Vakil is to do certain acts when and if the occasion arises. The acts themselves are subsequently-enumerated. They are (a) to sign the petition for entering into the compromise or for withdrawing the ...
Ammalu Ammal Alias Parvathi Ammal Vs. Namagiri Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Mad300; 43Ind.Cas.760; (1917)33MLJ631
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant sued to recover Es. 4,534-13-3 alleged to be due on a promissory note executed by the deceased Kothai Ammal, the widow and executrix under the will of one' Narasimhachari who died leaving another widow, two daughters and a daughter's son (defendants 1 to 4 respectively). The case for the plaintiff is that the promissory note sued on was executed in respect of moneys borrowed by the executrix to pay the legacy due to the 3rd defendant and that defendants 1 to 4 who have taken the testator's property and defendants 2 to 4 who have succeeded to Kothai Ammal's properties are liable. Various defences were raised but it is only necessary to consider the plea that the executrix had no power or necessity to borrow so as to bind the estate of the testator and the plaintiff can only proceed against Kothai Ammal's heirs and the assets in their hands. 2. The Subordinate Judge held that under the terms of the will the proceeds of the life ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »