Chennai Court January 1923 Judgments
In Re: Kanma Kondiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad608; 72Ind.Cas.616
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate's opinion that driving cattle by shouts and cries does not constitute 'rescuing' them under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act is erroneous. Inducing an animal to move may even amount to using 'force' (see definition in Section 349, Indian Penal Code and illustration (h) to that section), so that, even if the Magistrate is right in saying that the word 'rescue' implies the use of force or violence, it does not follow that there was no force used in this case.2. The reasons given for acquitting the accused are unsound, the acquittal is set aside, and the appeal must be re-heard and disposed of according to law....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramaswami thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ485
Spencer, J.1. The only question argued at the hearing of this appeal is whether the order under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the accused to give security to keep the peace is a legal order. It is argued (1) that the offence of voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323 I.P.C.) is not one of these specified in Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code and does not of itself necessarily involve a breach of the peace and (2) that there ought to be a finding by the Sessions Judge that a breach of the peace was actually caused before the Court made the order under this section.2. On the first point I find that the accused's act included an assault on prosecution 9th witness in a public place, and assault is one of the offences specified in Section 106. The expression 'Other offences involving a breach of the peace' would embrace offences ejusdem generis with the offences of assault and rioting which are specified in the section. It is only because the accused's act was more serious...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami thevan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.615
Spencer, J.1. The only question argued at the hearing of this is, whether the order under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the accused to give security to keep the peace is a legal order. It is argued (1) that the offence of voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323, Indian Penal Code) is not one of those specified in Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, and does not of itself necessarily involve a breach of the peace; (2) that there ought to be a finding by the Sessions Judge that a breach of peace was actually caused, before the Court made the order this section.2. On the first joint, I find that accused's act included an assault on the prosecution 9th witness in a public palce, and assault is one of the offences specified in Section 106. The expression 'other offences involving a breach of the peace' would embrace offences ejusdem generic with the offence of assault and finding which are specified in the section. It is only because the accused's act was more serious than...
Tag this Judgment!Pokkunuri Dasaratha Rao Vs. Chevuru Subba Rao Pantulu, Secretary Co-op ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad481; (1923)44MLJ382
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that was argued before us turns on the construction of Section 43(2)(1) or the Co-operative Societies Act II of 1912.2. The dispute arose between the petitioner, P. Dasaratha Rao and the Co-operative Stores, Vizianagaram in regard to sums of money that were entrusted to the former for purchase of certain articles. The stores claimed a balance on the ground that after some adjustments had been made the sum was found due and that the petitioner was wrongfully withholding it from the stores. The liability was disputed and the Secretary of the Co-operative Stores made a reference in writing to the Assistant Registrar who held an enquiry and passed a decree against the petitioner.3. Two contentions were raised before us by Dasaratha Rao. The first contention had reference to the interpretation of the words 'touching the business of a society 'in Section 43(2)(1). He contended that the present dispute does not fall within the said words and that the c...
Tag this Judgment!Golkonda Ramachendrudu and ors. Vs. Inuganti Venkata Narasimha Rowgaru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad557; (1923)44MLJ486
1. The point argued in appeal is that which has been dealt with as the third point by the lower appellate Court, whether in calculating the profits allowed to the petitioners for the period of their exclusion from the land the rent payable to the respondent-landholders should be deducted. We agree with the reasons given by the lower appellate Court for its conclusion against the petitioners and need refer only to the fact dealt with in the judgment under appeal, that after the decision of the District Munsif in these proceedings the respondents sued as landholders under the Madras Estates Land Act for rent and their suit was dismissed. It is urged that this is conclusive against their claim to deduct rent from the profits they have to pay the petitioners. We do not agree. The suit in the Revenue Court was founded on an allegation clearly unsustainable, that the relation of landlord and tenant was subsisting between the parties during the period in question. The failure of the suit on t...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.R. Rm. Vr. Ramanathan Chettiar (Dead) and ors. Vs. A. Venkatachell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad619; (1923)44MLJ599
Oldfield, J.1. In this case the 1st defendant appeals against the order of the lower Court Sectioning the proclamation of sale, fixing the upset price and the date of sale. The appeal is on the ground executed against the 1st defendant. The lower Court's reasons for rejecting this contention are not clear; but it appears to have rejected it with reference to Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact the agreement was made after the date of the decree of the Court of first instance, but before the date of the appellate decree of this Court, that appellate decree being one dismissing the appeal as the matter had been settled out of Court.2. It is urged with reference to Chidambaram Chettiar v. Krishna Fathiyar I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 233 that the 1st defendant should have been allowed to prove the agreement. The terms of the agreement are that, of the decree amount of Rs. 36,000, only Rs. 33,750 shall be recovered, the recovery to be made as regards half of that sum from the 2n...
Tag this Judgment!South Indian Industrials Ltd. Vs. Alamelu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad565; (1923)45MLJ53
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is a quite hopeless appeal. The facts are that the defendants for the purposes of their own business used a method of breaking up castiron which consisted of dropping a heavy weight on pieces of iron resting on a bed of iron with the intention that these pieces should be broken into smaller pieces. The weight was dropped from a height of 35 feet with the inevitable result that pieces of iron flew about. It is common ground that they habitually flew to distances of four or five yards from the pit.2. If persons choose to carry on dangerous operations of that kind, it is their duty not only to the public but to their servants to take adequate precautions that those pieces shall not cause injury. They ought to exercise, ordinary care, caution, and skill to pre vent that. The mere fact that an accident has happened is strong evidence in a case of that kind that they had not taken the ordinary care, caution, and skill required for preventing the happen...
Tag this Judgment!Golconda Ramachandrulu and ors. Vs. Inuganti Venkata Narasimha Row Gar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.670
1. The point argued in the appeal is that -which has been dealt with as the third point by the lower Appellate Court, whether in calculating the profits allowed to the petitioners for the period of--, their exclusion from the land, the rent payable to the respondents-landholders should be deducted. We agree with the reasons given by the lower Appellate Court for its conclusion against the petitioners and need only refer to the fact dealt with in the judgment under appeal that after the decision of the District Munsif in these proceedings the respondents sued as landholders under the Madras Estates Land Act for rent and their , suit was dismissed. It is urged that this is conclusive against their claim to deduct rent from the profits they have to pa)' to the petitioners. We do not agree. The suit in the Revenue Court was founded On an allegation clearly unsustainable, that the relation of landlord and tenant was subsisting between the parties during the period in question. The failure o...
Tag this Judgment!Kulandaivelu Pillai Vs. Ramaswami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad551; (1923)44MLJ495
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiffs, here respondents sued the two defendants, and defendant being the petitioner in this Court for Rs. 400 in the following circumtsances: Plaintiffs, it is not disputed, owed 1st defendant Rs. 400 and, it is proved, paid it to 2nd defendant, 1st defendant's agent, as such. 2nd defendant however did not account to 1st defendant for the money, misappropriating it. Ist defendant then obtained a decree for it against plaintiffs who did not appear or plead discharge. On these facts the lower Court dismissed plaintiffs' suit against 1st defendant, but gave a decree against 2nd defendant; and the question in this revision petition is whether it was right in law in doing so.2. It is clear that, if it was not, plaintiffs will have paid what they owed twice. But that result cannot affect the decision because it is entailed, not by anything in the legal relation between the parties before me, plaintiffs and 2nd defendant, but by the failure of the former to take advant...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaraja Chariar Vs. Ali Muhamad Ethibar Khan Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ649
1. The suit was brought for an injunction restraining the defendants irom interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands. The plaintiff alleged that he had been the Kudivaramdar of the suit lands prior to 1882 on condition of delivering waram to the landlord and that in 1882 the predecessor-in-title of the defendants executed Ex. A under which the waram was commuted into a fixed money rent and that the defendants claiming to revert to the waram rate, were interfering with the plaintiff, harvesting his crops. The defendants originally denied that plaintiff was the kudivaramdar and contended that as the inam was a charity inam, Ex. A was not binding on them. During the course of the trial, the plaintiff's right as kudivaramdar was conceded. The Subordinate Judge decided against the plaintiff and he appeals. The first question that arises for decision is the nature of the inam. Ex. II is the inam register. In column 8 it was described as Kyrati which means, according to Mac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »