Chennai Court September 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: Kottur Hampanna and Twelve ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad846
Oldfield, J.1. The Sessions Judge, Bellary, has referred a committal by the Sub-Magistrate, Adoni, in Preliminary Register No. 6 of 1921 as illegal in the following circumstances. The case apparently was charged in the first instance before the Sub-Magistrate under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. When the evidence was taken the Sub-Magistrate entertained some doubt as to whether that Section applied or whether the proper sections were not Sections 148 and 427, Indian Penal Code. He therefore submitted the case to the First-class Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 346, Criminal Procedure Code, he apparently not being a Magistrate of the first class competent to try an offence under Section 148, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate returned the records to him with an order, of which we may at once and quite apart from the legal objection to it, express our strong disapproval. The order runs as follows: 'The Sub-Divisional Magistrate declines to transfer the case to the f...
In Re: Maruda Mathu Vannian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.252
Oldfield, J.1. This reference, made by the Additional District Magistrate, Tanjore, at the instance of the accused in Calendar Case No. 365 of 1920 on the file of the Stationary Sub Magistrate, Tanjore, raises two questions: (1) whether the latter's procedure in examining the accused in this, a warrant-case, only before charge was framed and not also after the prosecution witnesses had been re-called for further cross-examination under Section 256(1), Criminal Procedure Code, was correct; (2) if ,it was not, whether there was an illegality vitiating the trial or an irregularity, on account of which we can, in the exercise q our discretion, refuse to interfere in revision.2. The accused are net represented before us. But we have had the advantage of a very full and careful argument from the learned Public Prosecutor. The first pro vision relating to the examination of the accused in a warrant-case is Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code which provides that he shall be discharged, 'if, u...
V.S. Govindachariar and ors. Vs. Nattu Kesava Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad344; 72Ind.Cas.243
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. I regret to be called upon to give a decision in this case which would, in any opinion, have been much better disposed of if the parties had brought to a successful issue the negotiations for a settlement which, we were informed, were taking place. As there negotiations have failed, the parties are entitled to our judgment.2. The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant, are that, the plaintiff represented a temple of the deity Vishnu of very old standing indeed. Throughout the arguments the plaintiff's temple has been referred to as the 'Y' temple. The defendant's temple is said to be a temple founded some, where about 1832 and the principal deity installed in that temple is known as Vendanta Desikar, himself at one time a worshipper of Vishnu. The followers and worshippers of that temple have been referred to in this ease as those of the temple 'U.' The two sets of worshippers belonging to the two great divisions of 'the Vaishnavite religion, the northern...
S.N. Raghunathasami Iyengar and anr. Vs. S. Gopaul Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ622
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee against an affirming judgment. We have then to see whether the requirements of Section 110, C.P.C. are satisfied, both as to the value of the subject matter and as to there being some substantial question of law for disposal.2. As regards the subject matter, the suit, one for recovery by sale on a mortgage, was brought for the principal amount of Rs. 9,942-4-9 and also for subsequent interest including, in the ordinary use of that expression, both interest up to and subsequent to the decree. The argument for the petitioner is that, if to the principal amount be added interest up to the decree, the necessary Rs. 10,000 will be made out. It is not disputed that this would be so. This contention is opposed on the ground that the amount of interest between plaint and decree cannot be thus taken in calculation. It seem to us that, although interest between plaint and decree is not ascertained in the plaint and although ...
In Re: A.S. Ramaswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ595
Krishnan, J.1. The only contention in this case is that the accused are not guilty under the 1st clause of Section 294 A, I.P.C. but only under the 2nd clause, as it is said there was no actual drawing of the lottery. The 1st clause of the section speaks of keeping an office for the ' purpose of drawing any lottery. ' I think the conditions for the application of that part of the section is complied with, when it is shown that the accused did keep an office where they carried on the necessary preliminary work for running a lottery and received the lottery moneys, and which they held out to the public as the place where the lottery would finally be drawn. Ex. U shows J: hat they did have such an office and they kept it for the purpose of carrying on all the business connected with the lottery and for drawing the lottery when the time arrived for it. I think the Magistrate was right in the view he took.2. Sentences are not heavy considering the loss caused to the public by the action of ...
Ramasami Chetty Vs. Muthuvelu Mudali and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad843
Krishnan, J.1. This is a revision petition by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused by the Bench Magistrate of South Arcot. The ground taken is that the Bench had no jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 3, Clause 12 of Act III of 1889, Curiously enough, the objection is taken by the complainant himself who invoked the jurisdiction of the Bench. This does not, however, prevent him from doing so in Revision; for a Court cannot get jurisdiction, if it had not any in law, mere because complainant invoked its jurisdiction.2. On the question of jurisdiction it is argued that tin Bench had jurisdiction only to try offences under Sections 5, 6 and 7 named in Rule 1, Clause 5(e) of the rules framed by the Government for the guidance of Bench Magistrates under Section 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The answer to this argument is that Section 3 is not mentioned in Clause 5(e), because it falls under the earlier Clause (2) as an offence against the conservancy clauses...
Ramasami Chettiar Vs. Muthuvelu Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.238
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is a revision petition by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused by the Bench Magistrates of South Arcot. The ground taken is that the Bench had no jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 3, Clause (12) of Act III of 1889. Curiously enough, the objection is taken by the complainant himself who invoked the jurisdiction of the Bench. This does not, however, prevent him from doing so in revision, for a Court cannot get jurisdiction if it had none under the law merely because complainant invoked its jurisdiction.2. On the question of jurisdiction it is argued that the Bench had jurisdiction only to try offences under Sections 5, 6 and 7 named in Rule 1, Clause (5)(e) of the Rules framed by the Government for the guidance of Bench Magistrates under Section 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The answer to this argument is that Section 3 is not mentioned in Clause (5)(e) because it falls under the earlier clause, Clause (2), as an offence against...
O.S.N. Raghunathaswami Iyengar and anr. Vs. S. Gopaul Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.596
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee against an affirming judgment. We have then to see whether the requirements of section no, Civil Procedure Code, are satisfied, both as to the value of the subject' matter and as to there being some substantial question of law for disposal.2. As regards the subject matter, the suit one for recovery by sale on a mortgage, was brought for the principal amount of Rs. 9,942-4-9 and also for subsequent interest, including, in the ordinary use of that expression, both interest up to and subsequent to the decree. The argument for the petitioner is that, if to the principal amount be added interest up to the decree; the necessary Rs. 10,000 will be made out; It is not disputed that this would be so. This contention is opposed on the ground that the amount of interest between plaint and decree cannot be thus taken in calculation. It seems to us that, although interest between plaint and decree is not ascertained in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›