Chennai Court August 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.
Subramanian Chetty and ors. Vs. Lakshmanan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad161
1. This appeal, which is connected with A.S. No. 340 of 1918 from the same decree, relates to a claim put forward by the plaintiffs against the A.M. Firm, consisting of the family of appellants. Plaintiffs' father, the first defendant's father and others were members of N.R.M.P. Firm, which deposited a sum of money with A.M. Firm, in which 1st defendant's father was a partner. The accounts of N.R.M.P. Firm have not been settled. This is a suit to recover plaintiff's father's share of a debt due to his firm by another firm, in which one partner of the creditor firm is also a partner. Even if plaintiffs were partners of the N.R.M.P. Firm, this would be an action for a partial account. Such a suit will no doubt lie in certain cases; but as pointed out by the Privy Council in Gopala Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar 1922 P.C. 115, when a suit for an account is barred, a suit for a partial account cannot be allowed, merely on the ground that defendant could claim that a general account should ...
Pallikudathan Alias Samudi Goundan Vs. Buddu Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ553
ORDER1. This is an application to this Court for grant of sanction to prosecute the counter-petitioner under Sections 182 I.P.C. Originally the application was made to the Sub-Magistrate under Sections 193 and 211, I.P.C. but the Sub-Magistrate finding that no charge was made against the counter petitioner by the petitioner converted the application into one under Section 182, I.P.C. and proceeded to grant sanction under that section and Section 193 for giving false evidence before him. On appeal to the District Magistrate the order granting sanction under both the sections of the I.P.C. was revoked. The petitioner comes here and claims that we should give that sanction now.2. Taking Section 182 first it is quite clear that the Sub-Magistrate had no authority whatever to grant any sanction in this matter because he was not the public servant to whom the information concerned was given. It was given to the Village Magistrate. It is contended before us that the Sub-Magistrate should be t...
K.P.S. Karuthan Chettiar Vs. R.M.M. Raman Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.340; (1923)45MLJ804
1. All that the creditor did in this case was to move the Court to take action under Section 43, Provincial Insolvency Act. The District Judge might very well have asked the Receiver to investigate the allegations of fraud but there was no occasion for him to dismiss the creditor's petition without staking any reason except that the creditor was not interested in making the application, and without any enquiry and before receiving a report from the Receiver.2. In Iyyappa Nainer v. Manicka Asari I.L.R. 40 M. 613 the Court took cognizance of the complaint, held an enquiry and refused to frame a charge. We do not question the authority of this decision for the proposition that a creditor is not a 'person aggrieved' by the final order passed after enquiry by the Court under Section 43.3. In Gujar Shah v. Barkat Ali Shah I.L.R.(1921) 1 Lah. 213 and Palaniappa Chett v. Subramaniam Chetti (1920) M.W.N. 135 the omission in Section 43 to give creditors a right to move the Court by application s...
In Re: Mulimayandi thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ845
1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellants by the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly with a jury, for dacoity under Section 395 I.P.C. The conviction being by a Jury, we are not entitled to canvass the case on the evidence and we must accept their verdict if there is no misdirection. It is however suggested that the Jury had been misdirected on two points and were thus misled and prejudiced against the appellants. The first point taken is that no reference was made by the Judge to the defence witnesses. There was one defence witness called, it is true, but all that he said was that the 2nd accused is a man of some property worth about Rs. 7,000. We do not think that the omission to bring this fact to the notice of the Jury can be treated as at all material in this case. It does not touch the question of evidence as regards dacoity.2. The second point taken is that the learned Judge should not have admitted in evidence all the statements made by certain of the panchayatda...
Pallikudathan Alias Samudi Goundan Vs. Budda Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad229
1. This is an application to this Court for the grant of sanction to prosecute the counter-petitioner under Sections 182 and 193, Indian Penal Code. Originally the application was made to the Sub-Magistrate under Sections 193 and 211, Indian Penal Code, but the Sub-Magistrate finding that no charge was made against the counter-petitioner by the petitioner converted the application into one under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, and proceeded to grant sanction under that section and Section 193 for giving false evidence before him. On appeal to the District Magistrate the order granting sanction under both the sections of the Indian Penal Code was revoked. The petitioner comes here and claims that we should give that sanction now.2. Taking Section 182 first it is quite clear that the Sub-Magistrate had no authority whatever to grant any sanction in this matter because he was not the public servant to whom the information concerned, was given. It was given to the Village Magistrate. It is...
C. Kunhammad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.60
1. The appellants before us were convicted by the Special Magistrate of Tirur, under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, and Section 126 of the Railways Act and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. The first contention of the learned Vakil for the appellants is that we must set aside the conviction under Section 126 of the Railways Act, because there is no proof as against each one of the accused that he did anything amounting to an offence under that section. He relies on Aydroos v. Emperor 72 Ind. Cas. 360 : 17 L.W. 21; (1922) M.W.N. 800; A.I.R.(1923) (M) 187 : 21 Cr. L.J. 360, in support of his contention. In the first place, there is the evidence of P.W. No. 1 in this case, that specific acts had been done by each of the accused. That evidence is in general corroborated by the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2 and 3. We see no reason to discredit the evidence in this case, which has been accepted by the Trial Judge.2. As regards the authority quoted, that case is very different f...
Mulimayandi thevan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad230; 76Ind.Cas.829
1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellants by the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly with a Jury, for dacoity under Section 395 Indian Penal Code. The conviction being by a Jury, we are not entitled to convass the case on the evidence, and we must accept their verdict if there is no mi Redirection. It is, however, suggested that the Jury had been misdirected on two points and were thus misled and prejudiced against the appellants. The first point taken is, that no reference was made by the Judge to the defence witnesses. There was one d fence witness called, it is true, but all that he said was that the second accused is a man of some property worth about Rs. 7,000. We do not think that the omission to bring this fact to the notice of the Jury can be treated as at all material in this case. It does not touch the question of evidence as regards dacoity.2. The second point taken is, that the learned Judge should not have admitted in evidence at all the statements made by c...
Pallikuduthan Alias Samudi Goundan Vs. Buddu Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.647
ORDER1. This is an application to this Court fur the grant of sanction to prosecute the counter-petitioner under Sections 182 and 193, Indian Penal Code. Originally, the application was made to the Sub-Magistrate under Sections 193 and 211, Indian Penal Code, but the Sub-Magistrate, finding that no charge was made against the counter-petitioner by the petitioner, converted the application into one under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, and proceeded to grant sanction under that section and Section 193, for giving false evidence before him. On appeal to the District Magistrate, the order granting sanction under both the sections of the Indian Penal Code was revoked. The petitioner comes here and claims that we should give that sanction now.2. Taking Section 182, it is quite clear that the Sub-Magistrate had no authority whatever to grant any Sanction in this matter because he was not the public servant to whom the information concerned was given. It was given to the Village Magistrate. I...
Palikudathan Alias Samudi Goundan Vs. Buddu Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad387(1)
ORDER1. This is an application to this Court for grant of sanction to prosecute the counter-petitioner under Section 182, I.P.C. Originally the application was made to the Sub-Magistrate under sections 193 and 211, I.P.C., but the Sub-Magistrate finding that no charge was made against the counter-petitioner by the petitioner converted the application to one under Section 182, I.P.C., and proceeded to grant sanction under that Section and Section 193 for giving false evidence before him. On appeal to the District Magistrate the order granting sanction under both the sections of the I.P.C. was revoked. The petitioner comes here and claims that we should give that sanction now.2. Taking Section 182 first it is quite clear that the Sub-Magistrate had no authority whatever to grant any sanction in this matter because he was not the public servant to whom the information concerned was given. It was given to the Village Magistrate. It is contended before us that the Sub-Magistrate should be t...
K.P.S. Karuthian Chettiar Vs. R.M.M. Raman Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ844
ORDER1. The application has been made nearly 3 years after the order sought to be appealed against was passed.2. It is contended that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act cannot be applied, because Section 78 of Act V of 1920 conferred a new right after the inception of these insolvency proceedings. We consider that this section did not create for the first time or take away any substantive right, but that it merely regulated the procedure applicable to appeals and applications under the Provincial Insolvency Act.3. We have therefore power to excuse delay and the fact that leave to appeal was not necessary under the old Act (III of 1907) is a sufficient reason for doing so.4. Leave to appeal is granted under Section 75(3) of Act V of 1920....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »