Chennai Court January 1923 Judgments
In Re: P. Streenivasa Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ585
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first accused was convicted of the offence specified in Clause (3) of Section 42 of the Prisons Act, Act IX of 1894. He was a prisoner at the Penitentiary and the second accused an uncle of the first accused who received a wire from a relation at Coimbatore which contained matters pertaining to the first accused, wrote a message on the back of the telegram intending that that writing should be read by the first accused, and handed the telegram to a jail warder who was employed to, and did, carry the telegram to the first accused in the jail. The latter, thereupon, read the telegram as well as the communication written on the back of it and wrote a reply on the back of the same telegram and handed it to the warder for being carried to the second accused. The Chief Presidency Magistrate convicted the first and the second accused of an offence under Section 42 of the Prisons Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200.2. The material portion of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliyaperumal Naidu Vs. Bavaji Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad91; (1923)45MLJ255
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Second Class Magistrate of Tanjore directed P.W. 4 to pay to the accused a sum of Rs. 35 as compensation under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the District Magistrate confirmed the order.2. The facts are these : P.W. 1 lost a bull. P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 who were residents of a village called Rainsapatti thereupon went to Ammapet the village where the accused was living and P.W. 4 gave information to P.W. 2, the Village Magistrate of Ammapet to the effect that a bull of P.W. 1 was stolen and that the accused was the thief. Before taking any action P.W. 2 desired to have a report from the Village Magistrate of Rainsapatti who accordingly forwarded to him Ex. A which confirmed the information given by P.W. 4. On the receipt of this report, P.W. 2 communicated with the police who charged the accused with theft or in the alternative receiving stolen property. It must be added that the police subsequent to the receipt of the communication from the ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Streenivasa Chetty and Thandayuthapani Chetti Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.609
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first accused was convicted of the offence specified in Clause (3) of Section 42 of the Prisons Act, IX of 1894. He was a prisoner in the Penitentiary and the second accused, an uncle of the first accused, who received a wire from a relation at Coimbatore which contained matters pertaining to the first accused, wrote a message on the back of the telegram intending that that writing should be mad by the first accused, and banded the telegram to a Jail Warder who was employed to, and did, carry the telegram to the first accused in Jail. The latter, thereupon, reed the telegram as well as the communication written on the back of it and wrote a reply on the back of the same telegram and handed it to the Warder for being carried to the second accused. The Chief Presidency Magistrate convicted the first and the second accused of an offence under Section 42 of the Prisons Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200.2. The material portion of the sec...
Tag this Judgment!Parthasarathi Chetti (Dead) and anr. Vs. Abdul Rahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad636; 75Ind.Cas.489
Francis Oldfield, J.1. The question is, whether the execution application is in time; that is, when the last step-in-aid of execution was taken by the petitioner.2. The facts are, that on 3rd May 1917, a warrant of arrest, issued at his instance, had beer returned, the judgment-debtor not having been found. What is relied on by the petitioner as a step-in-aid of execution is that the Court passed an order in the following terms:--'Fresh steps, if any, by 10th May 1917.' This order or the application, which I am asked to presume must have been made in connection with it, is relied on as a step-in-aid of execution. I agree with the lower Court that neither can be relied on in that way. The order itself is clearly not a step taken by the petitioner (decree-holder). It is impossible to say whether it was based on any application made or what the nature of that application was. On the assumption that there was an application for further time, that would not be a step-in-aid.3. The petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliaperumal Naidu Vs. Bavaji Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.941
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Second Class Magistrate of Tan]ore directed P.W. No. 4 to pay to the accused a sum of Rs. 35 as compensation under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the District Magistrate confirmed the order.2. The facts are these: P.W. No. 1 lost a bull. P.W. No. 1 and P.W. No. 4 who were residents of a village called Rtimsapatti, thereupon went to Ammapet, the. village where the accused was living, and P.W. No. 4 gave information to P.W. No. 2 the Village Magistrate of Ammapet to the effect that a bull of P.W. No. 1 was stolen and that the accused was the thief. Before taking any action P.W. No. 2 desired to have a report from the Village Magistrate of Ramsapatti, who accordingly forwarded to him Exhibit A which confirmed the information given by P.W. No. 4. On the receipt of this report P.W. No. 2 communicated with the Police who charged the accused with theft or, in the alternative, receiving stolen property. It must be added that the Police, subseque...
Tag this Judgment!Naduvil Edom Karnavan and Manager Kelu Achan Vs. Cheriya Parvathi Neth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.87; (1923)45MLJ135
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. In this case the suit was commenced before the District Munsif and it appears that there was an undervaluation of the suit. If it had been properly valued, the case would not have gone to the District Munsif but would have gone to the Subordinate Judge, in the first instance, and thence on appeal to the High Court instead of to the District Court and on second appeal to the High Court as is the case in decisions from District Munsifs. This objection to jurisdiction by reason of undervaluation was taken before the District Munsif who held that he had jurisdiction and heard the case. There was an appeal from him to the District Court, the lower appellate Court in this case. The District Judge held also that the suit was not undervalued but he also held that, if the suit were undervalued, still its valuation had not prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit on its merits. That decision on appeal comes to this Court by way of Second Appeal and, ther...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Board of Revenue (income-tax) Vs. Ripon Press and Sugar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad574; (1923)44MLJ523
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. In this case the facts contained in the' original reference and the further report which is by no means clearly expressed, amount to this. The company carries on a factory at Raichur in the territory of the Nizam of Hyderabad. At that factory material is pressed. Against persons who bring the material to the factory, a charge is made, and the charge is received wholly in Hyderabad. The Company's head office is in Bellary in this Presidency. There are Directors there and they control the business carried on at Raichur by directing its policy, fixing the rates to be charged for the work done there, examining its accounts and issuing divident warrants in respect of the profits earned. The only other thing that, it would appear, is done in British India is the receipt of some money for the purpose of the office expenditure at Bellary and possibly, though it is not clear on the statement, the receipt, of some money which is occasionally used for the paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumara Mudaliar Vs. Chockalinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad634; 73Ind.Cas.952
1. The statement which the Courts below have taken to be an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to save limitation, is the statement made by the present and 2nd defendant, who was 3rd defendant in Original Suit No. 28 of 1911, when examined as 2nd witness for plaintiff, when he said, 'I am the 3rd defendant. I and the 2nd defendant purchased some land from the 1st defendant. For the balance of price due to her, Exhibit A was executed.'2. We are unable to accept the view that this was an acknowledgment of a liability subsisting at the date when the witness deposed.3. The witness did not speak of the price as being still due to the 1st defendant at the time.4. We hold, following Kamdasami Reddi v. Suppammal : AIR1922Mad104 , Ittappan Kuthiravattat Nayer v. Manu Sastri 26 M. 34 : 12 M.L.J. 101 and Venkata v. Parthasaradhi 16 M. 220 : 3 M.L.J. 35 : 5 Ind. Dec. 860, that no implied acknowledgment of liability can be spelt out of the mere statement that the witness on some prior date exec...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Raghavachariar, by His Authorised Agent, P.R. Srinivasan Vs. Muru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad635; (1923)44MLJ680
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., refusing to confirm a sale made at Court auction. He has refused to confirm the sale on the ground that all the facts were not placed before him when the reserve price was fixed and when the plaintiff obtained leave to bid. There is a misapprehension on the part of the learned Judge in that the application for leave to bid was to him, but the application to fix the reserve price was to the Registrar and not to him. I do not think it is enough to say, in order to refuse to confirm a sale, that all the facts were not put before the Court on the two occasions referred to. But, in my judgment, the Court has an inherent power that the Court has been misled either in giving leave to bid or in fixing the reserve price. This is only an instance of the inherent power possessed by all Courts to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court, but, of course, the Court will not use that inherent power unles...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Krishnamurthy Aiyar Vs. C.V. Parasurama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad666; (1923)44MLJ648
ORDERSpencer, J.1. If the complainant can prove that the letter was posted in Madras with a view to be read in Tinnevelly the offence of defamation is triable either in. Madras or in Tinnevelly under Sections 179 and 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeing that the accused has done all in his power towards publication and has lost control of the letter when he has committed it to the post (see Mayne on Criminal Law, 4th Edition, p. 872).2. The English cases of Rex v. Burdett (885)106 E.R. 873 Rex v. Williams 1810 2 Camp. 506 and The Queen v. Ameer Khan and Ors. (1871) 17 W.R. Cr. 15 support this view.3. The third Presidency Magistrate is directed to take the complaint on his file and dispose of it according to law....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »