Chennai Court July 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Krishna Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad134; (1922)43MLJ555
ORDER1. The order before us is one passed by the District Magistrate under Section 437, Cr.P.C. ordering further enquiry into a case in which the petitioners were discharged. The occurrence in question in that case took place on 26.7.1920. It is unnecessary to go in detail into the subsequent progress of the proceedings. The petitioners were once convicted and on their conviction being set aside by the Sessions Judge, were retried. That retrial order is an order of discharge which the District Magistrate has set aside in the order before us.2. The facts for investigation amounted to a petty riot between the members of two factions in a village in the Madura District. In the course thereof a certain amount of violence seems to have been used and stones were thrown; but no injuries of any gravity were inflicted and, as far as appears, there is no question of any loss of valuable property. The evidence as far as we can judge of it, from the records before us, was of the kind usual in such...
In Re: Mohideen Pakkiri Marakkayar (Accused)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad839
1. We are asked in this revision case to interfere with an order passed by the First Class Sub Divisional Magistrate of Devakottai division disallowing the objection of the petitioner in a criminal case.2. The case was instituted on a complaint by the Income-tax Assistant Tahsildar of Devakottai. In that complaint, the accused was charged under Section 177, Indian Penal Code, within the meaning of Section 40 of the Income-tax Act VII of 1918. The facts set out are that the accused verified a petition which he afterwards presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 21 of the Income-tax Act. That verification was made at Kottaipatnam in the Tanjore district. But the last sentence of the complaint states that the offence was committed at the place where the return was received by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, within the lower Court's jurisdiction.3. It must be borne in mind that the complaint is statedly of an offence punishable under Section 177, Indian Penal C...
S. Govindasamy Odayar Vs. the Union Bank Ltd. by Its Director, Singara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad900
Wallace, J.1. A preliminary point is raised by respondent viz., whether an appeal lies. Appellant contends that the order is one under Section 47, C.P.C., as he is challenging the legality of his arrest; respondent contends that as he is only challenging the mode of executing the warrant, the case does not come under Section 47. There is no direct authority on the point. As at present advised, we incline to hold that the appeal is valid.2. On the merits, we cannot see that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He was arrested at 7 p.m. on the 25th November, 1922; he was then in custody of the Court's officers having been arrested, under another decree. Appellant; contends (a) that at the time of his arresting he was attending the Court for the purposes of execution of the first decree (b) that a judgment-debtor cannot be the subject of two arrests at the same time. As to (a) we can find no order which directed appellant to be in attenda...
Rangaswamy Ayyangar Vs. Veeraragha Vachary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.1003
Hughes, J.1. The first question argued in this appeal relates to the alleged invalidity of the mortgage on the ground that it was not properly attested. This question, in my opinion, has not really been considered by the District Munsif in his judgment and he has given no decision about it. He says no doubt in paragraph 10 ' P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 have both attested Exhibit A Their evidence shows that they attested Exhibit A at the request of defendant and that they were not present at the time of execution of Exhibit A by the defendant. In his written statement, defendant did not put plaintiff to proof of the suit mortgage-deed; Exhibit A. Plaintiff appears to have put these two witnesses into the box only to prove the consideration for Exhibit A. The fact that P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 did not see the defendant execute Exhibit A by itself does not count much for defendant. Taking the evidence and the probabilities into cons deration, I came to the conclusion that defendant has miserably failed to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›