Chennai Court January 1920 Judgments
King Emperor Vs. A.M. HussaIn Ally and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.1003; (1920)38MLJ333
Ayling, J.1. The accused in this case, were prosecuted for an offence under Section 39(d) of the Indian Income Tax Act for failure to produce their accounts in obedience to a notice issued by the Collector of Madras.2. They have been acquitted by the 4th Presidency Magistrate on the sole ground that the prosecution is barred by the second proviso to Section 24 of the same Act, which runs thus 'provided further that no prosecution for an offence against this act shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penal assessment is made under this section.'3. The only question for our decision is whether the Magistrate has rightly interpreted the section as barring the prosecution in this case.4. In my opinion he was clearly wrong. Exhibit VIII of 21st March 1919 is the order imposing penal assessment on the accused. It does not state the facts on which it was based but these must be deduced from the Collector's previous letter Exhibit V of 13th March 1919 which runs as follows...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. A.M. Hoosanally and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad498
Ayling, J.1. The accused in this case were prosecuted for an offence under Section 39(d) of the Indian Income-tax Act, for failure to produce their accounts in obedience to a notice issued by the Collector of Madras.2. They have been acquitted by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate on the sole ground that the prosecution is barred by the second proviso to Section 24 of the same Act, which runs thus:Provided further that no prosecution for an offence against this Act shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penal assessment is made under this section.3. The only question for our decision is whether the Magistrate has rightly interpreted the section as barring the prosecution in this case.4. In my opinion he was clearly wrong. Exhibit VIII of 21st March 1919 is the order imposing penal assessment on the accused. It does not state the facts on which it was based, but these must be deduced from the Collector's previous letter, Exhibit V, of 13th March 1919, which runs as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Malireddi Ayyareddi Vs. Adusumalli Gopala Krishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.493
1. The facts are these. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the property, They created three mortgages on it. The plaintiff is the third mortgagee. Defendants Nos. 4 to 7 purchased the equity of redemption under a decree in a Small Cause suit. In 1913, a suit was brought by the 2nd mortgagee to which the mortgagor and the prior and subsequent mortgagees were patties, and he obtained a decree. It should be mentioned that the 2nd mortgage covered not only the property, but all the crops that may be grown on it until redemption. The 3rd mortgagee sued in 1914 on his mortgage making the mortgagors alone parties and purchase d the property. Defendants Nos. 4 to 7 paid a good portion of the decree amount due to the 2nd mortgagee and then assigned their rights to defendants Nos. 9 and 10. These latter paid the balance of that decree. Satisfaction of the decree was entered. In execution of the decree on the 3rd mortgage, the property was brought to sale, and from the sale-proceeds the 1st...
Tag this Judgment!Duggempudi Nagamma Vs. Tirumala Reddi Venkata Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.363
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Paminathan Chetty v. Palaniappa Chetty 26 Ind. Cas. 228 : 17 N L R 56 quoted for the respondents only shows that the claim on a promissory note, given for an existing liability is based on a different cause of action from that on the said existing liability. It does not decide that a plaint cannot include both such claims in the alternative. If a plaintiff sues on one of such causes of action and the right to sue thereon is not free from doubt, it is always open to the Court (and in my opinion, it is desirable to do so to put an end to litigation as far as possible) to direst the plaintiff to amend the plaint, so as to convert it into a suit baaed on both causes of action, or treat it as so amended, and then to decide the suit once for all.2. The Court of first instance in this case held that no note was ever executed and hence it decreed the claim of the plaintiff based on the original cause of action alone.3. The lower Appellate Court held that a promissory note ...
Tag this Judgment!Amirthammal Vs. Madalakaram Alias Ramalinga Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.184; (1920)38MLJ503
Wallis, C.J.1. Following the decision in Kulwanta v. Mahabier Prasad I.L.R. (1888) All. 16 (F.B.) . and Ref. case 19 of 1911 we hold that the bond must be stamped both under the Court Fees Act and under Article 40 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, as it comes within the definition of a mortgage in Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, and Article 15 is therefore inapplicable. In Ref. case No. 9 of 1908 the the point that the bond in question was a mortgage within the meaning of the definition does not appear to have been taken. In re The District Munsif of Tiruvallur I.L.R. (1911) Mad. 17 the bond, which was given by a judgment-debtor and two sureties does not appear to have been a mortgage bond and consequently came within Article 15. ...
Tag this Judgment!Husaina Beari (Accused) Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad443
Couits Trotter, J.1. In this ease the accused was charged under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code with making a false charge against one Angara Mukari, under Section 1 of the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act, XIII of 1859. In order to determine the point at issue, which is one of considerable interest, it is necessary to examine both the wording of Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, under which the accused was convicted, and the wording of the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act. Section 211 of the Penal Code is as follows :Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted, any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished, etc.' By the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act, Section 1, it is enacted as follows :When any artificer, workman or labourer shall have received from a...
Tag this Judgment!Hussaina Beari Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.45
ORDER1. In this case the accused was charged under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code with making a false charge against one Angara Mukari, under Section 1 of the Workman's Breach of Contrast Act, XIII of 1859. In order to determine the point at issue, which is one of considerable interest, it is necessary to examine both the wording of Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, under which the accused was convicted, and the wording of the Workman's Breach of Contrast Act. Section 211 of the Penal Code is as follows:Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted, any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person shall be punished, etc.2. By the Workman's Breach of Contrast Act, Section 1, it is enacted as follows:3. 'When any artificer, workman or labourer shall have received from any master o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Secretary to the Commissioner of Salt and Abkari and Separate R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1920
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ506
1. After hearing the learned Government Pleader and considering the authorities cited, we are of opinion that the three sale-deeds in question, in each of which the vendor mortgages lands not included in the sale as security for the due performance of his covenants, need not be stamped both as sales and mortgages by virtue of the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as the sale-deeds are not instruments comprising or relating to distinct matters within the meaning of the section. The decision in Case No. 1 of 1876 (1) is not in point, as the terms of Section 14 of Act XVII of 1869, under which it was decided, are different from those of Section 5 of the present Act, which was substituted for it in Section 7 of Act I of 187P, which again is practically identical with Section 4 (a) of the English Stamp Act, 1891. In the matter of a reference from the Board of Revenue under Section 46 of the Stamp Act 8 c. 254 , a decision under Section 7 of the Act of 1879, it was held ...
Tag this Judgment!Sontyanagopala Dasu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Inapatalupula Rami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad410(1); (1921)41MLJ194
1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 to 4 in the suit which was brought by the plaintiffs on the footing of two I: usufructuary mortgages, Exs. A and B, in which the father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff and-the father of the 2nd plaintiff were the mortgagors and the 1st defendant was the mortgagee. The plaintiffs claiir. that the mortgage debt having been completely discharged they are entitled to the possession of the mortgaged lands by ejection ofithe defendants. They also claim an account.2. The mortgage deeds are dated respectively 27th September 1892 and 28th April 1893. The written statement filed by the defendants admit that the father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and certain minors became indebted up to 13th March 1887 in the sum of Rs. 560 in respect of the plaint mentioned registered deeds of mortgage with possession and they executed a settlement of account. They also file an account and plead that the sum of Rs. 950 odd is still due to them and that the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Jakkam Reddi Seshadri Reddi and ors. Vs. Sir S. Subramania Aiyar, K.C. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1920
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ504
1. One of the Plaintiffs in this suit which was instituted under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code was found to have no interest such as that required by this section. Thereupon two other men who had the requisite interest applied to the Collector and obtained sanction to institute this very suit. They were then added as third and fourth plaintiffs. Objection was, however, taken by the defendants to the effect that the suit was bad as laid and must be dismissed and that the requirements of Section 92 were not satisfied by adding 3rd and 4th plaintiffs in the same suit. The learned Subordinate Judge heard the objection discussed it and came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly instituted and dismissed it. There is a ruling of this Court in Ramayyangar v. Krishnaaiyangar I.L.R. (1886) Mad. 185 which would cover the present case; but it was argued that in the old Code no such clause as that in the sub-paragraph 2 of Section 92 occurred in Section 539 and that the latter paragra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »