Chennai Court September 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: Mahankalu Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad375(1); 81Ind.Cas.42
Krishnan, J.1. In this case five accused apply in revision to this Court to set aside their convictions by the Appellate Magistrate under Section 160, Indian Penal Code. They were originally convicted under Sections 147, 323, Indian Penal Code, by the Trying Magistrate but on appeal the Appellate Magistrate acquitted the first accused altogether and changed the conviction of the five accused under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code into one under Section 160, Indian Penal Code acquitting them of the offences which they were originally charged with. It seems quite clear to my mind that the charge under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, cannot be altered into one under Section 160 without a proper charge being framed and the accused tried again on the latter charge. It is not a case where an accused charged for a major offence is convicted of a minor offence where the major offence is not proved. The offence under Section 160, Indian Penal Code, is different from those under ...
itikyala Pedda Aswathappa Vs. Ankulugadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.70
Waller, J.1. The Chief Justice.--In this case a mortgage decree was obtained in November 1908 under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act which then applied. By the terms of that decree, if the amount of the mortgage was not paid by a certain date, the mortgaged property could be brought to sale. In 1911 an application was made to make the order absolute, which was the procedure prescribed under the Transfer of Property Act, and an order was passed. In 1914, 1915 and 1917 unsuccessful attempts were made to bring the interest of the mortgagor in the mortgaged property to sale, and the application which resulted in this appeal was launched in August 1920. An order was made for sale by the District Munsif in October 1920. The mortgagee having got his order after all those years was met by an appeal to the Subordinate Judge in which it was alleged--and it had been alleged before the District Munsif also that the execution proceedings were all void ab initio because he had not obtained...
i.P. Aswatappa Vs. Ankulu Gadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad603
Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case, a mortgage decree was obtained in November, 1908, under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act, which then applied. By the terms of that decree, if the amount of the mortgage was not paid by a certain date, the mortgaged property could be brought to sale. In 1911, an application was made to make the order absolute, which was the procedure prescribed under the Transfer of Property Act, and an order was passed. In 1914, 1915 and 1917, unsuccessful attempts were made to bring the interest of the mortgagor in the mortgaged property to sale, and the application which resulted in this appeal was launched in August, 1920. An order was made for sale by the District Munsif in October, 1920. The mortgagee, having got his order after all those years, was met by an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, in which it was alleged, and it had been alleged before the District Munsif also, that the execution proceedings were all void ab initio, because he had not obtained a p...
In Re: Samachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ728
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In these cases the first three accused in C.C. No. 8 of 1922 on the file of the Taluq Magistrate of Adoni are the petitioners before me. The 4th accused in the case was acquitted by the appellate Court and hence he is not a party to the revision. The four accused were charged under Section 414, I.P.C. on the ground that they voluntarily assisted in concealing and disposing of property, namely a bundle of 233 dressed skins produced before the Court which they, knew or had reason to believe was stolen property by transferring the said property from Gooty to Adoni, then by depositing it in different places and by offering it for sale. Both the lower Courts convicted the accused of the offence charged.2. The prosecution case is that Messrs Hazee Sheik Meeran Sahib and Co., despatched by rail 16 bales of tanned skins from Dronachalam in Kurnool district to Madras, that one of the bales was found missing, when the train reached Cuddappah on the 1st June, 1922, and that th...
V.A. Subba Rao Vs. Ponnammai Nadathi Alias Pakkiammal Nadathi (Dead) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ74
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by appellant to redeem a mortgage executed by him in favour of the husband of the 1st defendant who died leaving the 1st defendant, his widow, and defendants 2 and 3, his minor daughters. The 1st defendant in 1909 and after her husband's death sub-mortgaged the property and the 4th defendant claims to be entitled to the amount due on the sub-mortgage. The contention of defendants 1 to 3 is that the sub-mortgage originally created by the 1st defendant was a nominal transaction. The District Munsif found that the sub-mortgage was a genuine transaction supported by consideration but the Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed the decree on this point. In 1917, the appellant filed O. P. No. 33 of 1917 and deposited in Court the amount due on the mortgage. It is not disputed that the amount deposited was the amount legally payable on the mortgage. He seems to have stated that there was a sub-mortgage and that the 4th defendant claimed under it. Notice...
In Re: Samachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad350; 81Ind.Cas.310
Krishnan, J.1. In these cases, the first three accused in C.C. No. 8 of 1922 on the file of the Taluk Magistrate of Adoni are the petitioners before me, The 4th accused in the case was acquitted by the Appellate Court and hence he is not a party to the revision. The four accused were charged under Section 414, Indian Penal Code, on the ground that they voluntarily assisted in concealing and disposing of property namely, 233 dressed skins produced before the Court which they knew or had reason to believe was stolen property by transferring the said property from Gooty to Adoni, then by disposing it in different places and by offering it for sale. Both the lower Courts convicted the accused of the offence charged.2. The prosecution case is that Messrs. Hajee Sheik Meeran Saib and Co. despatched by rail 16 bales of tanned skins from Dronachalam in Kurnool District to Madras, that one of the bales was found missing, when the train reached Cuddappah on the 1st June 1922, and that this missi...
In Re: V. Narayana Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1923
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.260
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 5, Sub-section 1(6) and (d) and Section 20(d) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act III of 1918 and fined Rs. 50.2. There is he dispute about the facts. The petitioner is the proprietor of a Coffee Club in Coimbatore. On the 23rd October, 1931, the Sanitary Inspector, P.W. No. 1, bought from him one measure of milk. On analysis the milk was found to contain 40 per cent, of added water. The Bench held that this was a sale of food not of the nature, substance or quality which it purported to be Section 5(1)(d) of the Act.3. By rules framed under Section 20(e) of the Act the Local Government prescribed a standard of purity for milk. The milk sold by the petitioner was certainly not up to the standard of purity fixed by tie Government and hence the Bench held that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act.4. By rules framed under Section 20(d) of the Act the Local Government ...
V.A. Subba Row Vs. Ponnammai Nadathi Alias Pakkiammai Nadathi (Dead) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.363
1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by appellant to redeem a mortgage executed by him in favour of the husband of the 1st defendant who died leaving the 1st defendant, his widow, and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 his minor daughters. The first defendant in 1909 and after her husband's death sub-mortgaged the property and the 4th defendant claims to he entitled to the amount due on the sub-mortgage. The contention of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 is that the sub-mortgage originally created by the 1st defendant was a nominal transaction. The District Munsif found that the sub-mortgage was a genuine transaction supported by consideration but the Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed the decree on this point. In 1917 the appellant filed O.P. No. 33 of 1917 and deposited in Court the amount due on the mortgage. It is not disputed that the amount deposited was the amount legally payable on the mortgage. He seems to have stated that there was a sub-mortgage and that the 4th defendant claimed under i...
V.A. Subba Rao Vs. Ponnammal Nadathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad453
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by appellant to redeem a mortgage executed by him in favour of the husband of the 1st defendant who died leaving the 1st defendant, his widow, and defendants 2 and 3, his minor daughters. The 1st defendant in 1909 and after her husband's death sub-mortgaged the property and the 4th defendant claims to be entitled to the amount due on the sub-mortgage. The contention of defendants 1 to 3 is that the sub-mortgage originally created by the 1st defendant was a nominal transaction. The District Munsif found that the sub-mortgage was a genuine transaction supported by consideration but the Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed the decree on this point. In 1917, the appellant filed O.P. No. 33 of 1917 and deposited in Court the amount due on the mortgage. It is not disputed that the amount deposited was the amount legally payable on the mortgage. He seems to have stated that there was a sub-mortgage and that the 4th defendant claimed under it. Notice ...
Narayanaswami Chetti Vs. Vellaya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ722
1. The District Munsif's action in dismissing the mortgagee decree-holder's execution petition because he sought to bring only the 2nd item to sale cannot be supported. A decree-holder is entitled to execute his decree against any of the mortgaged properties (Vide Amir Chand v. Bukshi Sheo Pershad Singh I.L.R.(1906) C. 13.)2. Admittedly the respondent has no right to have the properties marshalled under Section 81 of the Transfer of Property Act; nor has he as against the mortgagee the right that Section 82 of that Act gives to a buyer against a seller when more properties than one are subject to a common charge. In Tara Prasanna Bose v. Nilmoni Khan (I.L.R.1913) C. 418 which was a case falling under that section, the mortgagee had foreclosed and was therefore, treated as representing the seller.3. Nor is it alleged that the present is any case of fraud on the part of the mortgagee. The respondent as 2nd defendant was a party to the suit and he did not at the time of trial ask the Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »