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.
Gopalakrishna Pillai and ors. Vs. Kunjithapatham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad324; 79Ind.Cas.651
Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. The facts in these cases are not disputed and the only question is whether on the facts the Subordinate Judge was right in dismissing the applications.2. The election to the Taluk Board in question was held on the 9th of May 1922. The Subordinate Judge's Court was closed for the summer recess on the 14th of May 1922 and re-opened on the 17th of July. The period of 14 days allowed for the presentation of the election petitions expired during the vacation and these petitions were presented on the 17th of July the date when the Court re-opened. The case for the petitioners is that they had with them the sum of Es. 200 each which had to be deposited and that these sums were produced before the Subordinate Judge.3. Rule 131 of the Civil Rules of Practice requires a person desirous of paying money into Court to bring into Court a Lodgment Schedule in the form prescribed by the rules and containing the various particulars mentioned therein. Thereupon an order for lodg...
Burla Appanna and anr. Vs. Anala Latchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad119; 79Ind.Cas.372; (1923)45MLJ735
Spencer, J.1. This is an application to the High Court to revise under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, the proceedings of the Board of Revenue acting in the exercise of the powers vested in it by Rule 21 of the Rules made by the Local Government under Section 215 of the Madras Estates Land Act, whereby the Board was constituted an appellate authority under Section 171 for the purpose of hearing appeals from decisions of Revenue Officers passed under Section 169 in the Chapter relating to Record of Rights in Act I of 1908. It is alleged that the Board of Revenue acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction by dismissing the petitioner's appeal without hearing him in person or by Vakil.2. It is a question whether the High Court can and should in the circumstances of this case exercise its revisional powers under the Civil Procedure Code. At the hearing of this petition the respondents were not represented. We have not therefore had the advantage of hearing arguments on both sid...
Ramakka Vs. V. Negasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1923
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ89
Spencer, J.1. This was an application by the fourth defendant for mesne profits on the extent of land in the enjoyment of the plaintiff between the date of the decree in the first Court and the decision of the appeal. The matter was referred by the District Judge to a Commissioner to ascertain the amount of mesne profits due. The Commissioner directed the plaintiff to adduce her evidence first, on the ground that she had been in possession of the property and was thus in the best position to state how much profit she had obtained. The plaintiff's pleader refused to open his case, upon which the petitioner's witnesses were examined and the case was closed. Meanwhile, the counter-petitioner applied to the District Court to direct the Commissioner to record her evidence. The District Judge in an order on the interlocutory application decided that the Commissioner was right and refused the counter-petitioner's request.2. The questions now before us are : (1) Whether the District Judge was ...
Ramakka Vs. V. Nagesam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad145
Spencer, J.1. This was an application by the fourth defendant for mesne profits on the extent of land in the enjoyment of the plaintiff between the date of the decree in the first Court and the decision of the appeal. The matter was referred by the District Judge to a Commissioner to ascertain the amount of mesne profits due. The Commissioner directed the plaintiff to adduce her evidence first, on the ground that she had been in possession of the property and was thus in the best position to state how much profit she had obtained.2. The plaintiff's pleader refused to open his case, upon which the petitioner's witnesses were examined and the case was closed. Meanwhile, the counter-petitioner (plaintiff) applied to the District Court to direct the Commissioner to record her evidence. The District Judge in an order on the interlocutory application decided that the Commissioner was right and refused the counter-petitioner's request.3. The questions now before us are (1) whether the Distric...
Burla Appanna and ors. Vs. Anala Latchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad250
Spencer, J.1. This is an application to the High Court to revise under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, the proceedings of the Board of Revenue acting in the exercise of the powers vested in it by Rule 21 of the rules made by the Local Government under Section 215 of the Madras Estates Land Act, whereby the Board was constituted an appellate authority under Section 171 for the purpose of hearing appeals from decisions of Revenue Officers passed under Section 169 in the chapter relating to Record of Rights in Act I of 1908. It is alleged that the Board of Revenue acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction by dismissing the petitioner's appeal without hearing him in person or by vakil.2. It is a question whether the High Court can and should in the circumstances of this case exercise its revisional powers under the Civil Procedure Code. At the hearing of this petition the respondents were not represented. We have not therefore had the advantage of hearing arguments on both sid...
Sreeramulu and Four ors. Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad61
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 and 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 u...
In Re: Arumuga Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.312
Krishnan, J.1. This is a case where the first accused is said to have escaped from lawful custody and accused Nos. 2 to 8 to have rescued him from such custody. The first accused is charged under Sections 147, 323 and 224, Indian Penal Code, and accused Nos. 2 to 8 under Sections 147, 323 and 225, Indian Penal Code. They have all been convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Erode and that conviction has been upheld by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Erode. This revision is by all those accused.2. The first point taken before me in revision is that the arrest of the first accused was not lawful and, therefore, the conviction under Sections 224 and 225 in the case of the first accussd and of the other accused respectively was not sustainable. What happened was, as found by the lower Courts, that P.W. Nos. 1 to 3 went to their cocoanut tope to see if any theft of toddy was going on as there had been frequent theft of toddy recently from that tope. They found the first accused, stan...
E.N.A. Samu Pattar Vs. the Official Assignee of the Property of Appach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad180
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is a motion by the Official Assignee, in the Insolvency of V.M. Appachi Chetti and Sons, that a transaction of 9th December, 1918, under which security was given to the present appellant, Samu Pattar, called the Garnishee, for Rs. 43,668-5-11 should be set aside, as a fraudulent preference, or in the alternative, on the ground that it was not a bona fide transaction, in that it offends against the laws of bankruptcy.2. The matter came before Phillips, J., and it was tried in the following manner. The Official Assignee's report was read and the affidavits filed on behalf of the Garnishee were presumably read and then the deponents thereto were put into the witness-box and cross-examined on behalf of the Official Assignee, then the bankrupt was called by the Official Assignee and nominally examined but really cross-examined on his behalf; then two further witnesses were called on behalf of the Official Assignee and a speech was made on behalf of the Garnishee and Cou...
Mrs. S.K. Burke Vs. T.C.W. Skipp
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad340; (1923)45MLJ754
Odgers, J.1. In this case the appellant was charged under Section 500 I.P.C. with having defamed the respondent. The alleged defamation falls under two heads which have been called in this case Ex. A (1) and Ex. B. In the Complaint, Ex. B. or the material portions thereof are more or less stated in detail in paragraph 4. As regards Ex. A. (1) it is said that the complaint is defective in that there is no specific reference to Ex. A (1) in it. Paragraph 3 of the complaint runs, 'That the accused on learning of the said marriage ' (i.e., the second marriage of the complainant) 'acted maliciously in spreading caluminous reports regarding the complainant's character with intent to defame, him and ruin his standing and position.' Several auhorities were cited to induce us to hold that, as Ex. A (1) was not specifically referred to in the complaint, there, was no complaint at all as regards that defamation and that, therefore, the whole proceedings with regard to that item are null and void....
V. Govindan Nair and ors. Vs. Kuttasseri Kunhi Krishnan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad227; (1923)45MLJ808
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this Revision Case an apparently novel point is raised. A complaint was laid for trespass against the accused on the 10th June, 1922, the alleged trespass having occurred on the 3rd June, 1922, before a Magistrate called Mr. Sequeira who heard the prosecution evidence and was then transferred. He was succeeded by Mr. Gangadhara Aiyar who heard the defence evidence and was then transferred. Judgment was delivered on the nth September, 1922, by Mr. T.A. Govinda Aiyar, Second Class Magistrate. The appeal was heard by the Personal Assistant, First Class Magistrate who confirmed the conviction arrived at by Mr. Govinda Aiyar. In this Court the learned Vakil for the accused raised the point that Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined to two Magistrates, so that the judgment by the Third Magistrate, Mr. T.A. Govinda Aiyar is without jurisdiction, and the conviction is therefore illegal. The learned Vakil quoted cases which however do not apply to the qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »