Chennai Court December 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: Bharata Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ324
Odgers, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Malapuram made under Section 488, Cr. P. Code wherein he ordered the petitioner to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 4 for the maintenance of the child of the respondent, a Nair woman, the petitioner being a Brahmin. The petitioner denied the sammandam and disowned the paternity of the child. The learned Magistrate however observed that his vakil did not press this point seriously either in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or in his own defence, and has come to the finding that the paternity of the child is proved. The main point relied upon before the lower court was that the woman was in a position to maintain the child and therefore the father was not liable to maintain it. Mr. N. R. Sesha Iyer before me has taken the same point and relies on two decisions of this Court, namely, Chantan v. Mathu ILR (1919) M 957 and Parrappath Chinna v. Sankuni Menon : (1919)37MLJ361 . In the f...
In Re: P.C. Perumal Alias Chellaperumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ325
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this case the accused was charged under Sections 342, 323 and 379 I.P.C. in that at about 5 O' clock on the evening of the 18th November 1922 he bound the complainant to a tree, snatched away his loin cloth and the towel he had on the upper part of his body and the two rupees that he had in the folds of his loin cloth. He was acquitted under Section 379 but convicted under Sections 342 and 323. The conviction was upheld by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Mr. S. Subramania Iyer for the accused presents three points for consideration. He says first that there is good and sufficient alibi evidence that the accused who was employed as a Building Sub-inspector in the Loco Scheme, Golden Rock, S. I. Ry. Trichinopoly was at work there on that day and not at the place where the offence is said to have been committed which is agreed to be 7 miles distant. The second point is that the Court improperly called a Court witness after the case of each side had been closed; and the...
The Official Assignee of Madras and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad141; 79Ind.Cas.910; 83Ind.Cas.174
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an application to review and rehear O.S.A. Nos. 27 and 28 of 1918 and further to declare that the agreement to sell certain properties of the insolvent by the Official Assignee of Rangoon, dated the 25th February, 1918, and the sale of the 29th May, 1919, in favour of the Zemindar of Naikarairathi are void as against the creditors. This Court has in C.M.P. No. 3032 of 1922 passed orders with the result that the Insolvency in Madras which had previously been annulled has revived. The orders to which O.S.A. Nos. 27 and 28 of 1918 referred were orders of Bakewell, J., refusing in effect to stay the sale of this property, and they were passed and confirmed by this Court in order that the whole matter might go to Rangoon and be decided there as the whole Insolvency was in effect then transferred to Rangoon.2. Under the circumstances, the right order is that those two appeals be revived and that the application, dated the 14th March 1918 be remanded to the Insolvency ...
Sesha Aiyar Vs. the Public Prosecutor and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.190
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to revoke a sanction given under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Act V of 1898, as it stood before the recent amendment; to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 467 and 109, Indian Penal Code. A preliminary objection is raised by the Public Prosecutor that this application does not he as under the Code now in force there is no provision for any sanction to be produced for a Court to take cognisance of any offence. The Amending Act XVIII of 1923 which came into force in September 1923 has abolished the procedure of obtaining sanction and has substituted for it a complaint in writing by the Court itself or by the Court to which that Court is subordinate. The question we have to decide is what the effect of this amendment is as to sanctions already granted before the amendment came into force. Under Section 195 of the Code, as it stood before the amendment, it is conceded that according to the rulings of this High Court the petitioner c...
Alagirisami Aiyar (Died) His Leqal Representative N.A. Ramiar, and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.326
Phillips, J.1. While I feel convinced that the parties did not at the time of entering upon the contract intend that actual physical delivery should be taken by each of the firms in turn, for such an arrangement would cause unnecessary delay and trouble, yet I am not prepared to differ from my learned brother's opinion that they have not given effect to this intention in the contract, and consequently I agree in the order proposed.Venkatasubba Rao, J2. The plaintiffs have instituted this suit for recovery of Rs. 6,250 with interest thereon on the ground that the said sum was paid by them as advance in respect of a contract entered into with the defendants, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the amount, the defendants having broken the contract. There was an oral agreement on the 8th of August 1918 and the terms of it were subsequently reduced to writing in what is known as var-thamanam letter bearing the date 28th of October 1918 which the defendants sent to the plaint...
In Re: Bharata Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad549
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Malappuram, made under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, wherein he ordered the petitioner to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 4, for the maintenance of the child of the respondent, a Hair woman, the petitioner being a Brahmin. The petitioner denied the sambandham and disowned the paternity of the child. The learned Magistrate, however, observed that his Vakil did not press this point seriously v either in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, or in his own defence, and has come to the finding that the paternity of the child is proved. The main point relied upon before the lower Court was that the woman was in a position to maintain the child, and therefore the father was not liable to maintain it. Mr. N.R. Sesba Aiyar before me has taken the same point and relies on two decisions of this Court, namely Chantan v. Mathu [1916] 39 Mad. 957, and Thillu Amma v. Sankunni Menon [1...
In Re: P.C. Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad587
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this case the accused was charged under Sections 342, 323 and 379, Indian Penal Code, in that at about 5 o'clock on the evening of the 18th November, 1922, he bound the complainant to a tree, snatched away his loin cloth and the towel he had on the upper part of his body and the two rupees that he had ins the folds of his loin cloth. He was acquitted under Section 379, but convicted under Section 342 and 323. The conviction was upheld by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mr. Section Subramania Aiyar for the accused presents three points for consideration. He says first that there is good and sufficient alibi evidence that the accused, who was employed as a building Sub-Inspector in the Loco Scheme, Golden Rock, S.I. Ry., Trichinopoly, was at work there, on that day and not at the place where the offence is said to have been committed, which is agreed to be about 7 miles distant. The second point is that the Court improperly sailed a Court witness, after the case of eac...
Sithamalli Subbayyer Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ350
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the defendant had applied to the Subordinate Judge for an order of discovery of documents against the plaintiff under Order 11, Rule 12, C.P. Code. The learned Judge refused to give such an order but directed the defendant to file a list of documents which he alleged were with the plaintiff, and on his doing so, passed an order under Rule 14 directing production of such documents upon oath. The plaintiff produced certain documents in Court and prayed the Court to keep them under lock and key. He also filed an affidavit. Under the Subordinate Judge's orders the documents were kept under lock and key. The defendant then applied for inspection and by a separate order after hearing parties inspection was ordered of the documents filed in Court by the plaintiff. On defendant inspecting those documents he found that some of the documents included in his list were not produced, in particular the rough chitta books he had asked for. Thereupon the defendant applied t...
Subbayyar Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad582
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the defendant had applied to the Subordinate Judge for an order of discovery of documents, against the plaintiff, under Order 11, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge refused to give such an order but directed the defendant to file a list of documents, which, he alleged were with the plaintiff and on his doing so passed an order under Rule 14, directing production of such documents upon oath. The plaintiff produced certain documents in Court and prayed the Court to keep them under look and key. He also filed an affidavit. Under the Subordinate Judge's orders, the documents were kept under lock and key. The defendant then applied for the inspection and by a separate order after hearing parties, inspection was ordered of the documents filed in Court by the plaintiff. On defendant inspecting those documents, he found that some of the documents included in his lists were not produced, in particular, the rough chitta books he had asked for. Thereupon...
Kandaswami Naidu Vs. M. Kanniah Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ366
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the City Civil Court in an action for breach of promise of marriage. The action is not by either of the parties proposed for the marriage but mainly by the brother of the proposed bridegroom against the father of the proposed bride. The contract was proved under which the first defendant agreed to give his daughter in marriage to the 2nd plaintiff who is 1st plaintiff's brother. It is well established that on breach of such a contract an action for damages lies. The Mitakshara itself provides that, if a more suitable suitor is found, a man will be justified in breaking off a marriage contract but I think that it is quite clear that, when that course is pursued, it is also provided that some form of damages can be provided against the father who so changes his mind. This is stated to be the law in Umed Kika v. Nagindas Narotamdas (1). There is a passage to the contrary in a decision of Beaman, J., in Khimji Vassonji v. Narsi Dhan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »