Chennai Court June 1918 Judgments
Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. Akkulammal Avergal, Zemindarini and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.185
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit was for a declaration that the appointment of the 3rd defendant to the office of headman of the new village of Muthalapuram, created by the amalgamation of two old villages, was illegal and that, therefore, the plaintiff's appointment by the Divisional Officer affirmed by the District Collector conferred the office upon the plaintiff. He also sued for recovery of the arrears of emoluments received wrongly by the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant among other pleas contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction by the provisions of Section 21 of the Hereditary Village Offices Act, Madras Act III of 1895, to entertain such a suit. The lower Courts overruled this plea as to jurisdiction, but on the marits dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. I shall first deal with the question of jurisdiction. Section 21 of Madras Act III of 1895 provides: 'No Civil Court shall have authority to take into consideration or decide any claim to su...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Mellor, Custodian of Enemy Property and Liquidator of Hostile Fir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ518
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused under Section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Both the complainant and the accused were diamond merchants, the former carrying on business in Bombay and the latter in Madras. The case for the prosecution is that complainant used to send on approval diamonds to the accused in parcels bearing prices, weights in carats, and numbers, that accused used to communicate his acceptance of the price or make counter offers that in the event of the parties agreeing as to the price the same was paid by the accused either in cash or by means of Hundis according to the terms under which they carried on business, and that the accused got from the complainant four packets of diamonds marked 4695, 4696, 4665 and 4666 which were sent to him at his request, which packets he pledged before any property in them passed to him without the knowledge or consent of the complai...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Mellor, Custodian of Enemy Property and Liquidator of Hostile Fir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.981
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused under Section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Both the complainant and the accused were diamond merchants, the former carrying on business in Bombay and the latter in Madras. The case for the prosecution is that complainant used to send on approval diamonds to the accused in parcels bearing prices, weights in carats, and numbers, that accused used to communicate his acceptance of the price or make counter-offers, that in the event of the parties agreeing as to the price the same was paid by the accused either in cash or by means of Hundis according to the terms under which they carried on business, and that the accused got from the complainant four packets of diamonds marked 4695, 4696, 4665 and 4666 which were sent to him at his request, which packets he pledged before any property in them passed to him without the knowledge or consent of the compla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›