Chennai Court October 1922 Judgments
Nara Appayya Vs. Darsi Venkatappayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad276; (1923)44MLJ27
ORDERWallace, J.1. It is admitted that Criminal Revision Case No. 787 of 1921 presented by the same parties and for the same relief was dismissed by this Court for default of payment of printing charges. The preliminary point for decision therefore in this case is whether the High Court can or will entertain a petition on a matter already disposed of, when the order disposing of it is still in force and has not been set aside. Petitioner relies only on the general powers of superintendence given to this Court over subordinate courts under Section 107 of the Government of India Act.2. The ruling of a Bench of this Court in Ranya Rao In re is in point, that being a case in which it was sought to restore to file a Revision petition dismissed for default. The Bench held that it had no such power. This ruling is also clear authority for the proposition that in a Criminal Revision Case 'no distinction can be made between an order passed without hearing the petitioner and one in which he is h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Court Fees
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.741; (1923)45MLJ557
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question to be decided in this case is whether on a proper interpretation of the notification contained in the Fort St. George Gazette of May 5th, 1922 the rules imposing increased institution fees on suits on the Original Side of this Court apply the new scale to suits instituted on that day or not. The words of the notification are 'that the amendments do come into force from the date of publication in the Fort St George Gazette,' and the whole question is whether those words mean on and after that date, including May the 5th, or after that date excluding May the 5th.2. The matter has been most fairly and clearly argued by the Advocate General for the Crown and Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Iyengar for the litigants, and I have also had the opportunity of studying and considering the judgments of my brothers, who take different views on this matter. I approach-this matter conscious of the salutary rule that, in all statutes imposing taxation, any real ambi...
Tag this Judgment!Kakarla Chinna Chendrayya Vs. Maddukkuri Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad338; 71Ind.Cas.244
ORDERWallace, J.1. The first point taken in this petition is that an Additional District Magistrate has no authority, unless specially empowered by designation by the Local Government, to pass an order of sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.2. It is not disputed in this case that by G.O., dated 9th October 1874, the Local Government has empowered all District Magistrates to pass orders of sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, and that by G. O., dated 24th of January 1922, it conferred on Mr. Senneck 'all the powers of a District Magistrate.' This last power is conferred under the provisions of Section 10(2), Criminal Procedure Code, which enables the Local Government to appoint an Additional District Magistrate and to confer on him 'all the powers of a District Magistrate under this Code'. The ordinary powers of a District Magistrate under that Code are set out in Schedule III(D) which makes no reference to Section 197. Petitioner contends that the scope ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Board of Revenue (income-tax) Vs. the Madras Export Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.756; (1923)44MLJ290
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question for determination in this case is whether the profits made by a resident in France with a branch or agent here which profits are received and retained in France are liable to Income-tax.2. The relevant facts are that a French Firm has a branch in Madras whose sole duty is to buy leather goods here and ship them to France. The French Firm are a firm of commission agents and they make the profits in question by being paid at a defined rate of commission on the value of the goods shipped. I had some doubt whether the fact that the French Firm made this profit by commission distinguished the case from that in which a similar firm bought here through agents and made a profit by re-sale in France but have come to the conclusion that it is an irrelevant consideration how it makes its profits, if it is in fact made and received in France and not here. By Section 3(1) the Act is to apply to all income from whatever source it is derived if it accru...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Parameswara Pattar Vs. Viyathan Mahadevi Alias Vahathamburathi Av ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.982
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This case comes by way of interlocutory appeal from an order of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in which he set aside leave to sue which had been granted in the suit.2. The plaintiff in the suit is a surety for the due performance of his duties and the due accounting by the agent of the Kizhakke Kovilagam. Some years ago, proceedings were taken in Malabar against the agent by the then head of the Kovilagam, it being alleged that he had not properly accounted for monies that he had received, and the present plaintiff was brought into that suit as a surety. A decree having been obtained, and the, then agent, who was the first defendant in those proceedings, having been found to be indebted to the Kovilagam and being a person of no means, the present plaintiff as surety had to pay. In this suit the surety wishes to set aside the decree in the earlier suit. He makes as parties the present representatives of the agent and the present Ranee who is the representative of the the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Perumalla Venkatasubbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad228; (1923)44MLJ74
ORDERWallace, J.1. The Lower Court has, acting under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, made a report against petitioner for an offence under Section 209, I.P.C. fraudulently making in a Court of Justice a claim which he knew to be false. The lower Court was of opinion that petitioner sued to recover money on a mortgage already fully discharged, knowing that it had been discharged.2. The first point taken for petitioner is that the lower court had no legal evidence on which to base its order and that the evidence on which it is based was recorded improperly and contrary to law. The petitioner, as plaintiff in the mortgage suit, did not appear on 12th December 1921, the date to which the suit had been adjoarned for trial, and the lower court proceeded nevertheless to file documents both for the plaintiff and the defendant and to examine the defendant's witnesses, the important part of the defence case being the production and proof of a receipt. I x. I, purporting to be in full disch...
Tag this Judgment!Jambapuram Subbiah and ors. Vs. Gundalapudi Alias Mittameedi Venkatram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ43
Oldfield, J.1. Some argument was addressed to us on behalf of the defendants, appellants, with reference to the calculations, on which the lower court's judgment is based. We have not however been shown how any question of law is raised in connection with their correctness and we therefore decline to interfere with the conclusions, in which those calculations result.2. The remaining ground, on which the appeal is argued, is against the lower appellate court's refusal to make any provision in its decree for an award to the defendants on account of the improvements they allege they have made on the suit property. The suit property is part of a larger area in common ownership of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff let his unascertained share to the defendants; and the present suit is brought for the eviction of the defendants from that share, the form of the decree being of course a decree for partition by metes and bounds of the plaintiff's share and delivery to him of posses...
Tag this Judgment!Ghulam Mohideen Quarishi Sahib Vs. Ahamadulla Begum Sahiba
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad206; 71Ind.Cas.49; (1923)44MLJ66
Oldfield, J.1. The petitioner asks us to revoke the Section granted by the District Court, Souh Arcot; for his prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Section was originally refused by the District Munsif and was afterwards granted by the District Court. During the pendency of the proceedings in the District Court the original applicant for the Section died and the application was continued by his widow, as his legal representative; and she is here to support the District Court's order.2. The question, which it is necessary for us to decide, is whether a legal representative is in such circumstances entitled to continue an application originally made by her predecessor in interest. The general rule is that any person whatever can institute a complaint of an offence other than certain offences clearly specified in the Code, such as defamation. An offence under Section 193 I.P.C. is not one of those excepted offences. There would therefore be no ...
Tag this Judgment!Jantapuram Subbiah and ors. Vs. Gundalapudi Alias Mittamudi Venkataram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad358; 71Ind.Cas.374
1. Some arguments have been addressed to us on behalf of the defendants-appellants with reference to the calculations on which the lower Court's judgment is based. We have not, however, been shown how any question of law is raised in connection with their correctness and we, therefore, decline to interfere with the conclusions on which those calculations resulted.2. The remaining ground, on which the appeal is argued, is against the lower Court's refusal to make any provision in its decree for an award to the defendant on account of the improvements they allege they have made on the suit property. The suit property is part of a larger area in common ownership of the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff let his unascertained share to the defendants, and the present suit is brought for the eviction of the defendants from the share, the form of the decree being, of course, a decree for partition by metes and bounds of the plaintiff's share and delivery to hi in of possession thereof. I...
Tag this Judgment!Annadana Jadaya Gounder Vs. Konammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad402; 71Ind.Cas.533
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the decree of the District Judge of South Arcot in Original Suit No. 13 of 1916 on his file. The suit was Drought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of the impartible estate known as Jadaya Goundar Jaghir, one of the bill Jaghirs on the Kalayan hills in South Arcot, and also the moveable and immoveable properties and outstandings described, in Schedules B, C and D. The Jaghir is one of the estates included in the Schedule of the Madras Impartible Estates Act, II of 1904, and is thus made inalienable by the holder beyond his lifetime. The last bolder of the Jaghir was one Naranappa Jadaya Goundar; the Jaghirdars ire given the honorific title of Jadaya Goundars. He died in 1914 leaving a Will, which is not now disputed, by which he bequeathed all his properties to the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff is his mother and the heir-at-law to his separate properties, as he left no issue. The two plaintiffs sue jointly, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »