Chennai Court December 1919 Judgments
In Re: Sundaresan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.684; (1920)38MLJ219
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. The District Magistrate of Coimbatore who is also the President of the District Board, had been informed that a certain cheque had been forged and he has taken cognizance of the offence against the accused under Section 190(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is argued that he had no such power. But I must admit, it is difficult to find any basis for such an argument in face of the language of Section 190(1)(c) which is to the effect that the District Magistrate may take cognizance of any 'offence upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed.' There can be no doubt upon the order recorded by the Magistrate, that he suspected that the accused had committed an offence of forgery and he has set out the facts which led him to that suspicion. Reliance has been placed in support of the petition upon several decisions of the Calcutta High Court, one of which is...
Tag this Judgment!Sundarasan Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad709
Spencer, J.1. I concur. I only wish to add that I agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Carnduff in Lakhi Narayan Ghose v. Emperor I.L.R. (1910) Cal. 221 that the decision in Thakur Pershad Singh v. The Emperor 10 C.W.N. 776 goes beyond the provisions of the Code and is not; a decision which can be followed without question.2. Another case, Jhuna Lal Sahu v. The King-Emperor (1917) Pat L.J. 657, was quoted to us. But, as I understand that case, there was a complaint in writing, of which the Magistrate might have taken cognizance under Section 190, Sub-section (1)(a), and the learned Judges were of opinion that, having such a complaint before him, the Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the same under Section 190, Sub-section (1)(c), as if it was a matter that had come to his knowledge from a source other than a complaint of facts constituting an offence, as 'complaint' is defined in the Code....
Tag this Judgment!Pusarla Peda Brahamaj and ors. Vs. Krishnama Chariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.703
1. It is argued that the orders of the Special Deputy Collector were ultra vires and outside the scope of his authority under Act I of 1876, because (1) plaintiffs claimed by prescription and that is not a case of alienation: (2) they and the Zemindar, to whom the land originally belonged, did not concur in applying for separate registration.2. As regards (1) we have been shown no reason for excluding acquisitions by prescription from the description ' Sale or otherwise.'3. As regards (2) Fischer v. Secretary of State for India in Council 19 M.P 292 shows that notwithstanding the absence of both parties' concurrence in the application, the aggrieved party's remedy is by a suit under Section 6 of the Act.4. In any case, however, it does not seem to us that plaintiffs have any grievance, on which they can sue. They admit before us that the suit land was originally the property of the Zemindar and that they have acquired it. In these circumstances they are, whatever errors there were in t...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.C.C.T. Chidambaram Chetti and ors. Vs. V.R.K.R. Karuthan Chetti an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.80; (1920)39MLJ511
John Wallis, C.J.1. I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother whose judgment I have had the advantage of reading. I agree with him that there is no res judicata in this case on any view, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to consider whether the doctrine of res judicata has any application to the case, seeing that the former suit was dismissed as against the sub-partners on the ground that assuming them to be such they were not proper parties to that suit. As regards the question whether the settlement Ex. 3 made between the plaintiff and his partner C.V.C.T. after the dissolution of the partnership is binding on the present defendants as his sub-partners, assuming them to be such, I am of opinion that it is not. Section 263 of the Contract Act the language of which clearly resembles that of Section 38 of the Partnership Act, 1890, no doubt provides that the rights and obligations of the partner continue in all things necessary for the winding up of the partnership. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Velayuda Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ85
ORDERAbdur Rahim, J.1. One Velayuda Mudali had licensed premises for sale of arrack and mutton in this town and he and his servants have been found by the Presidency Magistrate in the four cases that are before us guilty of having kept open the arrack shop after 8 P.M. and also of carrying on the business of sale of vegitables and mutton after the same hour. We are asked to say in Cr. Rev. case No. 654 that the arrack shop was not open after 8 P. M. but the facts found by the Magistrate are that the Inspector of Police noticed a large crowd in front of the shop and that when he went in that direction somebody gave the alarm and people began to disperse and some 6 or 7 men walked out of the verandah into the street, the street door was locked and defence witness 3 one of the employees of the licensee was watching at the door. He (the Inspector) went in and found 13 persons concealing them-selves in the terrace of the house and five or six more in the latrine.2. When he entered lights we...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Velayudha Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.183
ORDERAbdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.1. One Velayuda Mudali had licensed premises for sale of arrack and mutton in this town and he and his servants have been found by the Presidency Magistrate, in the four cases that are before us, guilty of having kept open the arrack shop after 8 p.m. and also of carrying on the business of sals of vegetables and mutton after the same hour. We are asked to say in Criminal Revision Case No. 654 of 1919 that the arrack shop was not open after 8 p.m.; but the facts found by the Magistrate are that the Inspector of Police noticed a large crowd in front of the shop and that when he went in that direction, somebody gave the alarm and people began to disperse and some six or seven men walked out of the verandah into the street; the street door was looked, and D.W. No. 3, one of the employees of the licensee, was watching at the door. He (the Inspector) went in and found 13 persons concealing themselves in the terrace of the house and five or six more in the l...
Tag this Judgment!In Re Packianathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.510
ORDER1. The accused was prosecuted in this case for an offence under Section 419 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. He was going to Ceylon, and he used a permit which stood in the name of one Knmaraswami while the accused's own name is J. Packianathan. On seeing the permit the Health Officer at Mantapam, who is an employee of the Ceylon Government, issued a health certificate, but, according to the case of the prosecution, P, W. No. 2, the Health Officer's clerk, recognised the accused as he had seen him before and seeing that he had given a false name reported the matter to the Health Officer. He questioned the accused and the accused at first, according to the Health Officer's evidence, gave his name as Kumaraswami but afterwards gave the correct name. A bond was taken from him and there the correct name was entered.2. The trying Magistrate after examining two witnesses, i.e., the Health Officer and his clerk, discharged the accused, holding that no offence of attempt at...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.M.V.L. Firm of Madura Represented by Managing Member Sokkalingam C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.786; (1920)38MLJ324
1. We accept the finding that plaintiff's claim to damages in the prior proceedings does not disable him from suing. It is a sufficient reason for doing so that the claim was not made, as Section 95 C.P.C, requires, at the stage at which either of the conditions postulated by that section had been fulfilled but in an anomalous manner not contemplated by law in an application at the close of plaintiff's counter-affidavit disputing the propriety of the attachment before judgment and therefore at a stage at which the Court was not called on to deal with it and could not legally have done so.2. The appeal is then argued with reference to limitation, plaintiff contending for the application of Article 36 or 49, Schedule I, Limitation Act and defendant for Article No. 29. In the lower courts it does not seem to have been noticed that damages were claimed under two headings, firstly on account of injury to plaintiff's stock in trade caused by the persons, who made the attachment before judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Sriman Madabhushi Gopalacharyulu Vs. Emmani Subbanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.984; (1920)43MLJ493
Wallis, C.J.1. The subject of this suit is the amount of the kattubadi payable to the plaintiff Zemindar by the defendants who are agraharamdars, and the question argued before us is whether this is res judicata against the 10th defendant by reason of the decree in second appeal No. 838 of 1911 confirming the decree in A.S. No. 451 of 1905 which decided the question against the agraharamdars reversing the decree of the Subordinate Judge in their favour.2. In O.S. No. 56 of 1901 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Rajahmundry two of the agraharamdars sued the Receiver of the Nidadavole Estate and the Zemindar for a declaration that the kattubadi was only 580 joining the other agraharamdars as defendants.3. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Godavari gave the plaintiffs a decree in O.S. No. 56 of 1901 which was reversed on 1st December 1910 by the District Judge of Kistna in A.S. No. 451 of 1905. Prativadi Bhayamkaram Rukminiamma, one of the agraharamdars through...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi Vs. the Advocate-general of Madras and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.546; (1920)38MLJ201
1. The learned Subordinate Judge has directed the addition of the Advocate-General as a plaintiff to two suits under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, which relate to the administration of a mutt and a temple, and the question we have to decide is whether we should in the exercise of our powers of revision interfere with that order.2. It is argued that, if it be shown, as the defendant proposes to do that the other plaintiffs are not persons having an interest in the trust, the suit will be liable to be dismissed, and that the addition of the Advocate-General is not necessary for the complete disposal of the suit as originally instituted.3. Order 1 Rule 10(2), Civil Procedure Code provides for the addition of parties whose presence is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit. We are not disposed to place a narrow construction on these words. The case in Darves Haji Mahomad v. Jainudin I.L.R (1906) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »