Chennai Court August 1918 Judgments
In Re: Gaddam Panchalu Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ686
ORDERNapier, J.1. This is an application for revocation of sanction to prosecute the petitioner for an offence under Section 182, I.P.C., in that he gave false information to a public servant. The petitioner wrote to the District Magistrate informing him that one Soora Chinna Venkata Reddi had in his custody without license 3 pieces of arms and submitted to the District Magistrate that the possession of such weapons ' by such a person in our village will be dangerous to our lives and that they are without any license.' The house of Venkata Eeddi was searched and no arms were discovered. Venkata Reddi then put in a petition, to the District Magistrate under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code asking for sanction for the prosecution of the person who gave the information for an offence under Section 182, I.P.C. The District Magistrate granted the sanction. The petitioner then appealed to the Sessions Judge who dismissed his petition holding that the order was passed by the Distric...
Tag this Judgment!Komuru Appalaswami and ors. Vs. Palli Narayanaswamy, Minor by Guardian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ62
1. This second appeal was filed 108 days, (excluding the time required for getting copies), after the date of the Lower Appellate Court's decree, and the delay of 18 days in presentation is explained by the intervention of the annual vacation. The copy was ready on the 21st day of May 1917 during the vacation, but delivery was not taken until the 25th day of June 1917, the re-opening day. The question is whether the period from 21st May 1917 to 25th June 1917 can be considered as part of the period requisite for obtaining a copy within the meaning of Section 12 of the Limitation Act.2. Chapter XV, Rule 12 of Rules and Orders for Civil Courts lays down that arrangements shall be made by Courts for granting copies of judgments, decrees, etc., during the vacation provided that applications for such copies shall have been made' before the adjournment and the attention of the Courts was drawn to this rule by a Circular of this Court, Dis. No. 1081, dated 2nd December 1902. In accordance wit...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaramalinga Dikshatar Vs. Sabharathna Dikshitar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ624
1. The Lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit without any trial holding that it was not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act without a prayer for the possession of the temple and its properties jointly with the defendants. Though a preliminary issue was framed on the point no evidence was given or taken and the question was disposed of solely on the pleadings; we have therefore to decide the question on the same materials. 2. In this plaint the plaintiff states that he is one of the Dikshitars, who are holders of the combined offices of archaka and dharmakartha in the plaint temple, and that as such he is entitled according to the usage of the temple to the right of performing puja for five days once in every 9 months and along with 19 others to the custody of the idols, jewels and other valuables of the temple for 6 months by rotation (apparently once in 6 or 7 years). He states that in 1909 on account of a dispute as to the ownership of a certain plot of land the body...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaramalinga Dikshitar Vs. Sabharatna Dikshitar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.822
1. The lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit without any trial, holding that it was not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act without a prayer for the possession of the temple and its properties jointly with the defendants. Though a preliminary issue was framed on the point, no evidence was given or taken and the question was disposed of solely on the pleadings; we have, therefore, to decide the question on the same materials.2. In his plaint the plaintiff states that he is one of the Dikshidars, who are holders of the combined offices of Archaka and Dharmakarta in the plaint temple, and that as such he is entitled, according to the usage of the temple, to the right of performing puja for 5 days once in every 9 months and along with 19 others to the custody of the idols, jewels and other valuables of the temple for 6 months by rotation (apparently once in 6 or 7 years). He states that in 1909 on account of a dispute as to the ownership of a certain plot of land, the bod...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ533
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are cross appeals from an order of Bakewell, J., in insolvency by which, acting under Section 22 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, he stayed the proceedings of the Official Assignee of Madras in I.P. No. 83 of 1917. In O.S.A. No. 27 the Official Assignee of Madras challenges the order of stay and O.S. No. 29 is an appeal to the same effect by one of the creditors, while in O.S.A. No. 89 the Official Assignee of Rangoon asks that the Madras Insolvency should not merely be stayed but annulled. No question was raised before the learned Judge as to the petition for annulment having been presented by the Official Assignee of Rangoon instead of by one of the creditors and it is unnecessary for us to consider the question, as to which we decide nothing.2. On 17th April 1917 two of the creditors of the firm of T.A.R.A.R.M. Ramanatham Chetty presented a petition for the adjudication of the firm to this Court, alleging that the firm consisted of Ramanatham Chetty ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Venkatachariar Vs. Narasimha Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ647
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in a suit brought by a mittadar to eject the defendants who claim to hold under a permanent lease.2. Two questions have been argued before us (1) whether the defendants hold on a permanent tenure and (2) whether, if they did so held, they have forfeited their tenure by renouncing their character as lessees by setting up a title in a third person, within the meaning of Section 11(g) of the Transfer of Property Act.3. As regards the 1st point, we have been referred to Bajaram v. Narasinga 23rd August, 1918., Foulkes v. Muthuswami Goundan I.L.R. (1898) Mad. 503 : 8 M.L.J. 207 Venkata-ramana v. Venkatapathi : (1915)28MLJ510 . and Rama Aiyangar v. Anga Guruswami Ghetti : (1918)35MLJ129 . in which the meaning of the words saswathom' and 'kayom' occurring in leases have been construed. We do not think it necessary again to discuss the meaning of these terms or the correctness of the decision in Rajaram v. Narasingha I.L....
Tag this Judgment!The Crown Prosecutor Vs. Bhagavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ559
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is an application by the Crown Prosecutor for quashing the commitment made by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras, to the High Court Sessions of a case falling under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code punishable with 2 years' imprisonment of either description or fine (of unlimited amount) or both and triable by a Court of Sessions or a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class. The ground on which we are asked to quash the commitment is that under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate ought to try a case himself till it ends in a conviction or acquittal before him (see Section 258) unless he thinks that the offence could not be adequately punished by him, and that in this case it was impossible for the Magistrate to entertain such an opinion because he had powers under the Code to inflict imprisonment of either description up to 2 years which is the maximum punishment provided for the offence. This argument...
Tag this Judgment!Paramaswami Aiyangar Vs. Alamu Nachiar Ammal, Minor Represented by Her ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ632
Ayling, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the Special Deputy Collector, Madura District in the matter of bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in certain suits under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act pending in his Court.2. The preliminary objection is taken that this Court has no power of interference in revision in such cases, Reliance is placed on Section 205 of the Madras Estates Land Act. In my opinion this section relates, not to incidental orders in suits, the final decree in which is appealable, but to such proceedings as are specified in Part B of the Schedule to the Act, as those in which no appeal lies (Nos. 12-20). It is not, and cannot be, intended to affect the revisional powers of this Court, in suits which are made appealable to the District Court and this Court under part A of the schedule. Section 115 Civil Procedure Code is one of the sections made applicable to suits under the Madras Estates Land Act by Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kandasami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Mad418(2); (1918)35MLJ736
ORDER1. In this petition we are asked to revise the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Madura, upholding the conviction of the accused for an offence under Rule 29 of the rules framed under the Defence of India Act of 1915 for having dissuaded one Ramu Pillai from entering into military service. It was contended by Mr. A. Subbarama Aiyar in the course of his able argument first, that there was no such offence in the Madras Presidency and secondly, that if it was an offence the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Melur had no jurisdiction to try the charge in that (1) the ordinary Courts of the Country have no jurisdiction, (2) there was no previous consent of the District Magistrate as required by the Act. After hearing the Advocate-General in reply we had no doubt that the petition must be dismissed, but thought it advisable to give our reasons in a written judgment in view of the importance of the questions raised.2. The first argument is based on the peculiar arrangement of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Crown Prosecutor Vs. Bhagavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.337
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is an application by the Crown Prosecutor for quashing the commitment made by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras, to the High Court Sessions of a case falling under Section 304 (a) of the Indian Penal Code punishable with 2 years' imprisonment of either description or fine (of unlimited amount) or both and triable by a Court of Session or a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class. The ground on which we are asked to quash the commitment is, that under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a Magistrate ought to try a case himself till it ends either in a conviction or acquittal before him (see Section 258), unless he thinks that the offence could not be adequately punished by him, and that in this case it was impossible for the Magistrate to entertain such an opinion because he had powers under the Code to inflict imprisonment of either description up to 2 years, which is the maximum punishment provided for the offence. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »