Chennai Court December 1922 Judgments
In Re: Varisai Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.163; (1923)44MLJ567
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been ordered to be referred to a Full Bench by reason of a large number of similar cases pending in which decisions of Magistrates throughout the Presidency would be vitiated if the recent decision of this Court in In re Marudamuthu Vannian : (1922)43MLJ402 , was correctly decided.2. The facts are that the accused were charged by the police in a warrant case for receiving stolen property before the Second Class Magistrate of Paramakudi. The procedure adopted by him was the following. Witnesses for the prosecution were examined. The accused being given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses when their examination was 'completed did not avail themselves of that opportunity. The accused were then questioned generally on the case for the purpose of enabling them to' explain the circumstances appearing from the evidence against them, and they stated that they would put in a written statement. The Magistrate then, under Section 254 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gopal Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.343; (1923)44MLJ655
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether In re Ramaswamy Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) M 913, was correctly decided,2. This is not a desirable form of reference to a Full Bench, because the facts of one case are seldom precisely the same as those of another and it is much better that the point on which the opinion of the Full Bench is desired should be formulated. In In re Ramaswamy Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) M 913, a Village Magistrate arrested a drunken man whose conduct was at the time a grave danger to the public. In this case two Police Constables arrested a man who was drunk and creating disturbance, but to what extent he was a danger to others does not appear in the order of reference. The decision in In re Ramaswamy Ayyar I.L.R. (1921) M 913 went on the ground that the English Common Law which is ' that for the sake of the preservation of the peace any individual' who sees it broken may restrain the liberty of him whom he sees breaking it so long as ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. B.S. Nataraja Sastrigal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad355; (1923)44MLJ251
Spencer, J.1. The appellant is the Official Receiver of the Tanjore District. He appeals against the orders of the District Judge of East Tanjore appointing a special receiver in L.P. No. 3 of 1921 instead of the Official Receiver, in whom the insolvent's property would ordinarily vest under Section 57 of Act V of 1920. It appears that when the adjudication of insolvency was made the District Judge vested the property in the Official Receiver on the 26th July, 1922. The next day at the instance of the vakil for some of the insolvents the District Judge re-considered his order and substituted 'Special Receiver 'for 'the Official Receiver 'in his order. Section 57, Clause 2 permits the Court to make such an order for special reasons. The Official Receiver moved the Court to reconsider this second order, but the District Judge declined to do so on the 15th August, 1922.2. In these appeals a number of points have been raised on either side. It is contended that the Official Receiver is not...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kottithoti Mamed Haji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ428
1. We have to deal first with an objection to the competence of the Special Magistrate, by whom the appellants 1 to 6 accused, have been convicted. The only persons, who under Ordinance 1 of 1922, Section 4(2)(b) can legally be appointed Special Magistrates, are 'magistrates who have exercised the powers of a first class Magistrate for not less than two years. 'M.R. Ry Dewan Bahadur C. Gopalan Nayar the Special Magistrate here in question, was, as the order appointing him, dated 1-7-1922, shows, on that date a retired Deputy Collector. It is not disputed by Mr. Pocker tor the accused, that he had before and up to his retirement exercised first class powers for not less than two years. The objection to his appointment is that he was not on 1-7-1922 a Magistrate, because his retirement bad determined his magisterial powers.2. The learned Public Prosecutor hardly disputes that only a person, who is already a magistrate, is eligible for appointment as Special Magistrate; and that is clearl...
Tag this Judgment!Pupooth Alias Komancheri Rarichan Alias Ramanunni Kurup Vs. Vayisravan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad553; (1923)44MLJ515
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Calicut in O.S. No. 30 of 1919 on his file dismissing the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff is the appellant before us.2. Plaintiff became the sole surviving member of his Komancheri Tarwad on the death of his mother and sister in March, 1907. He was then solely entitled to the tarwad properties. He was at the time a minor of 8 years age and his father the 2nd defendant who had previously nianaged the affairs of his tarwad as his mother's agent continued in management of his affairs as his de facto guardian. Being a member of a Marumakkatayam tarwad his father was not his legal guardian, in fact he had no legal guardian. At that time there was a mortgage debt on the tarwad lands m favour of one Bhattathiripad, of Rs. 9,000 which was admittedly binding. To pay off this debt and to meet other alleged necessities the father acting as plaintiff's guardian borrowed in March, 1908 a sum of Rs. 12,000 from the 1st defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Subrahmania Chetty and anr. Vs. the British Indian Steam Navigation Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad523; 72Ind.Cas.408
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the burden was on the plaintiff to prove shortage as the bill of lading expressly says 'that weight, contents and value when snipped unknown;' see In re Anglo-Russian Merchant Traders and John Batt & Co., London (1917) 2 K.B. 679 : 86 L.J.K.B. 1360 : 116 L.T. 805 : 61 S.J. 591. No attempt has been made by plaintiff to prove this though about a month's time seems to have been given to him by the learned District Munsif. It is urged that I should give him a further opportunity of proving his case. I am unable to do so, as I think he had ample opportunity already. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Kottithoti Hamed Haji and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.381
1. We have to deal first with an objection to the competence of the Special Magistrate by whom the appellants Nos. 1 to 6 accused, have been convicted. The only persons who, under Ordinance I of 1922, Section 4(2)(6), can legally be appointed Special Magistrates are ' Magistrates who have exercised the powers of a First Class Magistrate for not less than two years.' M.R. Ry. Dewan Bahadur C. Gopalan Nayar, the Special Magistrate here in question, was, as the order appointing him, dated 1st July 1922, shows on that date a retired Deputy Collector. It is not disputed by Mr. Pocker for the accused that he had before and up to his retirement exercised first class powers for not less than 2 years. The objection to his appointment is that he was not on 1st July 1923 a Magistrate, because his retirement had determined his Magisterial powers.2. The learned Public Prosecutor hardly disputes that only a person who is already a Magistrate is eligible for appointment as Special Magistrate, and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Puppooth Alias Komaucheri and anr. Vs. Vayisravanath Manakkal Raman So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.309
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Calicut in Original Suit No. 30 of 1919 on his file dismissing the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff is the appellant before us.2. Plaintiff became the sole surviving member of his Kommancheri Tarwad on the death of his mother and sister in March 1907; and he was then solely entitled to the Tarwad properties. He was at the time a minor of eight years of age and his father, the second defendant, who had previously managed the affairs of his Tarwad as his mother's agent, continued in the management of his affairs as his de facto guardian. Being a member of a Marumakkatayam Tarwad, his father was not his legal guardian. At that time there was a mortgage-debt on the Tarwad lands in favour of one Bhattathiripad, of Rs. 9,000 which was admittedly binding. To pay off this debt and to meet other alleged necessities, the father acting as plaintiff's guardian borrowed in March 1908, a sum of Rs. 12,000 from the first defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Kachi Reddi Nagireddi Vs. Saki Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad44
ORDER1. A preliminary objection has been taken that we have no power to extend time or excuse delay in this case and we think that the objection must be sustained. The delay in question is, it is not disputed, more than 150 days. To enable us to excuse it, a power more extensive than that conferred by Section 3(i) of Act XXVI of 1920, whould be necessary. But we cannot hold that we have such a more extensive power, or any general power when in that Section the Court's discretionary power, to extend time for excuse shown, is recognised, subject to any explicit restriction to a period of 60 days. The petitioner has reliance also on the concluding words of Clause 9 of the order in council, dated 9th February, 1920, as conferring an un-restricted power, but those words can be understood as authorising the Court's use of its discretion to the extent specified in the Act and there is no necessity to read them as authorising more. The objection must be allowed. The Petition is dismissed with ...
Tag this Judgment!Bappu Alias Venkataramier and anr. Vs. V.A. Annamalai Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad313; (1923)44MLJ226
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff entered into a contract with the 1st defendant for the sale of his lands and brought this suit for specific performance of the agreement. The 1st defendant, who agreed to purchase the property, pleaded that the contract had been rescinded, but died shortly afterwards, and his sons defendants 2 to 4, the 4th defendant being a minor, were impleaded, and a decree for specific performance was prayed for as against them. These defendants adopted their father's written statement, so far as it was not opposed to their interests, and also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable against them. The Subordinate Judge has found that the contract was not rescinded and this finding is accepted in appeal. He has also found that defendants 2 to 4 are liable to perform the contract entered into by their father. He has come to this conclusion on broad grounds which he sums up as follows: 'The price is not inadequate. The assent was not obtained by questionable...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »