Chennai Court December 1924 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.
theetharappa Pillai Vs. Meenakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.105; (1925)48MLJ494
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tuticorin, dated 23rd March, 1924, directing the execution of the order for maintenance was clearly wrong and should be set aside. The counter-petitioner before the Magistrate, who is the petitioner before me, filed a counter-petition presumably under Sub-clause (3) to Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code setting out certain grounds on which he contended that the order should not be executed. The words in Sub-clause (3) of the section as now amended are, ' If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, etc. ' These words clearly contemplate a counter-petitioner in such circumstances coining into Court when execution of the order is applied for and showing cause why it should not be executed. The Court is then bound to consider the sufficiency of the cause alleged by the counter-petitioner and to refuse the execution if the Court should be satisfied that the cause is suff...
Teetharappa Pillai Vs. Meenakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad715
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tuticorin, dated 23rd March, 1924, directing the execution of the order for maintenance was clearly wrong and should be set aside. The counter-petitioner before the Magistrate, who is the petitioner before me, filed a counter-petition presumably under Sub-clause (3) to Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code setting out certain grounds on which he contended that the order should not be executed. The words in Sub-clause (3) of the section as now amended are, 'If any person so ordered fails, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, etc.' These words clearly contemplate a counter-petitioner in such circumstances coming into Court when execution of the order is applied for and showing cause why it should not be executed. The Court is then bound to consider the sufficiency of the cause alleged by the counter-petitioner and to refuse the execution if the Court should be satisfied that the cause is suffic...
Korapalu Hengsu and ors. Vs. Gowri Hengsu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad729; 88Ind.Cas.228
1. The appellants had a mortgage-decree with costs for Rs. 5,578 in O.S. No. 22 of 1919 against the 1st respondent and seven others on the file of the Sub-Court of South Kanara. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had another mortgage-decree for Rs. 5,208 in O.S. No. 23 of 1919 against the same properties. The appellants brought the properties concerned in this appeal to sale and obtained permission of the Court to bid at the auction on condition that they deposited the sale price in Court. The sale commenced on 18th July 1921 with an upset price of Rs. 3,250 and was continued on the following days and was knocked down on 20th July 1921 to the appellants' Pleader for Rs. 6,000. The Subordinate Judge afterwards set aside the sale on the application of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the reason that the respondents did not get notice of the appellants' application of 18th July 1921 to be allowed to bid. It was 'pointed out to him that the respondents did get notices in March 1921 of the sale procl...
In Re: Nari Alias Senjimalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad716; (1925)48MLJ594
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I very much regret to have to set aside the conviction and sentence in this case. I have no doubt whatever in my mind that the accused was a customer in the brothel kept by the prosecution 2nd witness, and on the evidence on the record there seems to be no doubt whatever that he was constantly in the habit of helping her in the business she was carrying on as keeper of the brothel. I have also no doubt, in my mind, when the accused took the girl to the house of the prosecution 2nd witness, if his intention was not that she should be used, it is clear he knew that she was likely to be used in course of time, for purposes of prostitution. In these circumstances, if the words in Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code were:Any person who sells, lets to hire or does anything else in the case of any minor under sixteen years, with intent that such minor shall be employed or used, etc.I should Have had no hesitation whatever in finding the accused guilty and confirming ...
Kumara Goundan Vs. thevaraya Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1113; 87Ind.Cas.635; (1925)48MLJ616
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows : In this case one Ramanadhan Chetty had obtained a decree against defendants 1 and 2 in S.C.S. N0.296 of 1915. In execution of that decree (E. P. No. 959 of 1915) the decree-holder attached the suit property. The order to attach was made on nth August, 1915 and the attachment was actually made on 6th September, 1915. The sale was posted to 8th January, 1916. On 6th January, 1916 the present 3rd defendant filed a claim petition. On 8th January, 1916, the sale was adjourned to 15th January, 1916, in order to enable the Court to enquire into the claim. But the claim petition was actually disallowed only on 17th January, 1916. The order disallowing the claim petition runs as follows : ' In these two cases rival claimants have preferred claims to the property in dispute. The judgment-debtors are minors and two persons purporting to be their guardians have sold in one case the whole property and in another half the property to the two purc...
In Re: G. Narasimhachariar, B.A., B.L., High Court Vakil
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad797
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. In this case a High Court Vakil practising at Kumbakonam has had three charges made against him in relation to his professional conduct which have been sent up to this Court by District Judge, West Tanjore.2. We think that the third charge, which admittedly has not been perfectly investigated, is one in which it would not be possible to say with certainty that a case of professional misconduct has been proved.3. There remain two other charges the facts of which have been fully investigated and reported upon by the learned District Judge and as his findings of fact are not controverted, I will shortly summarise what they are. In the first case the vakil was retained by two persons one of whom was a gosha lady and the other was an old man. They were the plaintiffs in a suit in which there stood to their credit in Court a sum of Rs. 1,218, and it is not disputed that the vakil drew that money out of Court. It was of course, his duty to pay it over to his clients, an...
Ramakrishna Iyer Vs. Sithai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1924
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.395
ORDERVictor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the Sub-Magistrate of Kumbakonam gave leave to the petitioner before us, one Ramakrishna Iyer, to prosecute the respondent, a woman called Sithai Ammal, under Section 211 of the Indian. Penal Code for bringing against him a false charge of dacoity. The respondent thereupon went before Mr. Shield, who was then the District Magistrate of Tanjore and he passed an order on the 11th September 1923, the new Cr.P.C. having come into force on the first of the month. The learned District Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was nothing for him to do. He was asked to revoke the sanction and he said 'I am not going to revoke the sanction, there is nothing in it'. It is admitted that the complaint had been filed before the 1st of September 1923. In that view we have found from the records he was wrong but that being his view and he presumably not being properly instructed on the facts, he supposed that no complaint had been filed befor...
Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Venkatarama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ523
1. The two Civil Revision Petitions are presented against the order of the District Munsif of Mayayaram confirming an award in the matters in dispute in O.S. No. 505 of 1919 on his file, dismissing petitioners' objections and granting the respondents a decree in accordance therewith. The petitioners challenge the order on various grounds, the chief contention being that the arbitrators decided two matters beyond the scope of the reference and therefore beyond their jurisdiction and therefore the Lower Court, in accepting their decision on these points and incorporating it in its decree, has exceeded its jurisdiction. The arbitration was in the matter of the dissolution of partnership between the six plaintiffs in the suit and the defendants, who were jointly working a mill concern. The reference to arbitration, Ex. A, gave the arbitrators authority, inter alia, to sell the property, moveable and immoveable, by public auction to the highest bidder, whether he be a partner or a stranger,...
A.L.V.R.P. Veerappa Chettiar Represented by His Authorised Agent M.V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad607; (1925)48MLJ428
1. The petitioner seeks for the revision of the decree of the Lower Court in a Small Cause suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant, the Municipal Council of Palni, the amount of profession tax levied on him by the Council for the half-year ending 31st March 1922. The facts appear to be as follows : The plaintiff is a Nattukottai Chetti, whose profession is money lending and he exercises that profession at Devakottah. He has purchased the Zamindari of Rattiampadi in the Palni Taluq. This Zamin is situated wholly outside the limits of the Palni Municipality. The plaintiff maintains in the Palni town a resident collection agent who collects his Zamin's rent for him. In these circumstances the Lower Court has held that the plaintiff has through his agent been in receipt of income within the Municipality and is therefore liable to be taxed for profession tax.2. The legal correctness of this decision depends, on the interpretation of Sections 93 and 95 of the Madras Di...
In Re: Chinna Manikam Alias Chinnappa Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ504
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The accused-petitioners before me were convicted along with 20 others of the offences of rioting and hurt by the Magistrate who heard the case. The Magistrate convicted the 20 accused, and on appeal the Appellate Magistrate acquitted 10 out of the 20. It is now argued before me that the learned Appellate Magistrate has not considered the case of each of the petitioners separately and come to a conclusion (with regard to his guilt or otherwise. On a careful consideration of the judgment of the Appellate Magistrate I am satisfied that he did not bring to bear, with regard to the case of each of these accused, a judicial mind for the purpose of considering whether he was guilty or not having regard to the charges against him and the special evidence directed to him and his particular defence if any. It has been held by Ayling, J., in the case of In re, Bapu Naidu and ten others (1915) 2 LW 958 that though the Appellate Magistrate may give satisfactory reasons...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »