Chennai Court October 1923 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: M.P. Narayana Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad106
Odgers, J.1. After stating that the appellant had been convicted under Section 121 of the Penal Code in respect of a speech delivered at a place known as Manjeri on 24-8-21, his Lordship proceeded : Two legal objections have been taken by Mr. Menon, the learned Counsel for the Appellant. It will be convenient to deal with them before I come to discuss the evidence, (1) It is said that charges under Section 121 form one of a class of cases falling under Section 196, Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that the complaint must be made by order of or under authority from the Local Government.2. Mr. Menon took a preliminary objection before us that the sanction (printed at page 50 of the printed papers) was so defective and insufficient as practically to amount to no sanction at all. Paragraph 1 of the Government Order, dated 3rd May 1922 sanctions the prosecution of the accused for an offence under Section 121, Indian Penal Code, in that he incited and encouraged the Moplahs of Wornad ...
R.C. Krishnasamy Naidu and ors. Vs. Chengalraya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad171
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor, dated 23rd September 1921, refusing to set aside an order dismissing an appeal, dated 4th March 1921.2. The facts are that the petitioner being the appellant in the appeal before the Court instructed a vakil to appear and conduct his appeal. We will assume on the evidence before the Court that this vakil did not appear on 4th March 1921 to conduct the appeal in pursuance of his instructions by reason of the vakil having taken up the attitude of non-co-operation with the Courts and we will also assume that the appellant did not come to know of the order of the Court dismissing his appeal until sometime after it was dismissed and that he took immediate steps on making the discovery to bring the matter before the Court. Assuming these facts to be correct, the appellant has suffered grave injustice, for his appeal, for no fault of his own, has never been heard, although it may be that he has a remedy against his vakil...
Thayuman Pillai Vs. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.632
1. The two points taken in this case are that Ramasami Chetty was appointed Receiver only of the crops and not of the corpus of the property, and that as the property had been already attached the sale in pursuance of such attachment without leave of the Court appointing the Receiver was not vitiated.2. Both these points are covered by the ruling in Levenia Ashton v. Madhabmoni Dasi which has been followed in Fraser v. Krishnaswami Iyer, and which we are also prepared to follow. We are of opinion that the Receiver was appointed in the present case for the property itself though the object of the appointment was to collect the rents and profits of the land. It is significant that the point now raised was not raised in the lower Court.3. On the second point, as observed by Mookerjee, J. on page 439 of 11, C.L.J.,The general rule is well settled that property in the hands of a Reciever is exempt from judicial process except of course to the extent permitted by the appointing Court.4. Then...
R.C. Krishnaswamy Naidu and ors. Vs. R. Chengalroya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.836
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor, dated 23rd September 1921, refusing to set aside an order dismising an appeal dated 4th March 1921.2. The facts are, that the petitioner, being the appellant in the appeal before that Court, instructed a Vakil to appear and conduct his appeal. We will assume on the evidence before the Court that this Vakil did not appear on the 4th March 1921 to conduct the appeal in pursuance of his instructions by reason of the Vakil having taken up the attitude of non-cooperation with the Courts and we will also assume that the appellant did not come to know of the order of the Court dismissing his appeal until sometime after it was dismissed and that he took immediate steps oh making the discovery to bring the matter before the Court. Assuming these facts to be correct, the appellant has suffered grave injustice, for his appeal, for no fault of his own, has never been heard although it may be that he has a remedy against his V...
R.C. Krishnaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. R. Chengalroya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad114
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittore, dated 23rd September, 1921 refusing to set aside an order dismissing an appeal dated 4th March 1921.2. The facts are that the petitioner being the appellant in the appeal before that Court instructed a Vakil to appear and conduct his appeal. We will assume on the evidence before the Court that this Vakil did not appear on 4th March, 1921 to Conduct the appeal in pursuance of his instructions by reason of the Vakil having taken up the attitude bf non-co-operation with the Courts and we will also assume that the appellant did not come to know of the order of the Court dismissing his appeal until sometime after it was dismissed and that he took immediate steps on making the discovery to bring the matter before the Court. Assuming these facts to be correct, the appellant has suffered grave injustice for his appeal, for no fault of his own, has never been heard although it may be that he has a remedy against his Vakil ...
Vedala Venkata Subamma Vs. Vedala Venkamma (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad308
1. The plaintiff in this case is the widow of one Vedala Janakiramayya who is said to be the adopted son of the first defendant's husband. The first defendant has denied both the factum of the adoption and also its validity. The Subordinate Judge has found that the ceremony of adoption did actually take place and that the plaintiff's husband has been treated as an adopted son by the first defendant, but he has held that, the first defendant, not having had authority from her husband or from the sapindas to make the adoption, the adoption is invalid; and he has further found that the first defendant is not estopped from raising the plea of the invalidity of the adoption. In appeal, the factum of the adoption is not disputed and the only point which is seriously argued is that the authority given by the husband has not been actually proved; but it is contended that the first defendant, by her conduct and acts from the time of the adoption until the present day, is estopped from denying t...
Agajan Saheb Vs. Abdul Majid Khan Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad512
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Kumarasawmi Sastri, J., who baa stayed execution of a decree for Rs. 4,000, against the person of the judgment-debtor, on terms of his paying Rs. 200 within 14 days, until the judgment-creditor proceeds in execution and sells the judgment-debtor's immoveable property. The judgment-creditor says that the immoveable property is worth nothing, it being mortgaged for more than its full value. The judgment-debtor says that he cannot find a purchaser for it, but that he does not want to risk himself going to prison.2. I can find no power in the Judge to make such an order. It is for the judgment-creditor to elect his remedies in execution, subject, of course, to such rules as there may be, governing a particular case ; but our attention has been called to no rule at all, which would justify such an order as this. In my view, the order was wrong, and the appeal must be allowed with costs and the petition dismissed with cost.Waller, J.3. I agr...
Sukdevadoss Ramprasad Vs. Dewan Bahadur Govindoss Chathurbujadoss and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.893; (1923)45MLJ716
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The Plaintiffs case on the face of their plaint is simply a claim for the price of goods sold and delivered. It is not contended that the actual goods were delivered. It is admitted that documents purporting to be delivery orders on which delivery of the goods could be demanded passed between the parties. The defence is a somewhat unusual one namely that the transactions were not really sales of goods at all but were in the nature of gaming and wagering. The only thing that I find in the evidence in support of that contention is the fact that the goods after passing from the plaintiffs to the defendants and going through other hands ultimately reverted by purchase to the plaintiff. That is obviously not conclusive. A buyer may sell with the knowledge that the person to whom he sells will pass on the goods and if the market is rapid and transfers take place quickly he may very well contemplate that the person who ultimately claims the goods may be the last of a long...
Vedachari Vs. Narasimha Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad307; 76Ind.Cas.793; (1923)45MLJ825
1. Following the ruling in Matilal Pal v. Preo Lall Mitra (1911) 13 C.W.N. 226 and Jahar Lal Bhutra v. Bhupendra Nath Basu I.L.R(1922) . C. 495, we hold that the doctrine of lis pendens applies as regards suits for specific performance of agreements to sell immoveable properties just as much as to suits for possession of immoveable properties. As observed by Mookerjee, J. in the latter case, 'The obvious reason for this is that if when the jurisdiction of the Court was once attached, it could be ousted by the transfer of the defendant's interest, there would be no end to litigation and justice would be defeated.' That the principle underlying the doctrine applies to Court sales such as we have to deal with here, has also been held. The decision of the lower appellate Court is therefore right; and the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed with costs....
In Re: S. Tirumala Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad540; (1924)ILR47Mad396; (1924)46MLJ40
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C.C.J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of North Arcot, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in relation to a conviction by the Sub-Magistrate of Gudiyattam of one Tirumala Reddi under Section 179, of the Indian Penal Code, he being fined Rs. 10, in default seven days' simple imprisonment.2. The facts appear to be that the accused had been summoned for some offence before the Village Panchayat Court at Kandiapedu, he being charged with instigation to beat. On being charged before that Court, he said he would not make any reply and remained silent. The Panchayat Court thereupon sanctioned the prosecution of the accused under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 179 runs:Whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant in the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished.3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »