Chennai Court February 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.
Appasami Mudaliar and Two ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad442
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the three petitioners before me have been convicted under Section 225-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various fines by the sub-Magistrate of Denkanikota, and their conviction has been confirmed by the Joint Magistrate of Hosur.2. The prosecution case is that certain constables were sent to the village of Ullugurukki on the 29th May 1922 and P.W. 1, a constable, arrested the first accused and took him by his hand. Then, it is said, the accused asked him why he arrested him and that the constable told him that he was arresting him under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused seems to have resisted this arrest on the ground that he was not liable to be arrested under Section 54, Criminal Procedure Code. The constable who arrested him had no warrant for his arrest. Accused 2 and 3, who are the sons of the first accused, also seem to have taken part in resisting the arrest. All the same, all the three accused were arrested by the cons...
In Re: Appaswamy Mudaly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.51
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case the three petitioners before me have been convicted under Section 225B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various fines by the Sub-Magistrate of Denkanikota, and their conviction has been confirmed by the Joint Magistrate of Hosur.2. The prosecution case is that certain constables were sent to the village of Ullugurukki on the 29th May 1922 and P.W. No. 1 a constable, arrested the first accused and took him by his hand. Then, it is said, the accused asked him why he arrested him and that the constable told him that he was arresting him under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused seems to have resisted this arrest on the ground that he was not liable to be arrested under Section 54, Criminal Procedure Code. The constable who arrested him had no warrant for his arrest. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are the sons of the first accused, also seems to have taken part in resisting the arrest. All the same, all the three accused were arrested...
In Re: Appaswamy Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad555
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case the three petitioners before me hare been convicted, under Section 225-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various fines by the Sub-Magistrate of Denkanikota, and their conviction has been confirmed by the Joint Magistrate of Hosur.2. The prosecution case is that certain constables were sent to the village of Ullugurkki on the 29th May, 1922 and P.W. 1, a constable, arrested the first accused and took him by his hand. Then, it is said, the accused asked him why he arrested him and that the constable told him that he was arresting him under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused seems to have resisted this arrest, on the ground that he was not liable to be arrested under Section 54 Criminal Procedure Code, The constable who arrested him had no warrant for his arrest. Accused 2 and 3, who are the sons of the first accused, also seem to have taken part in resisting the arrest. All the same, all the three accused were arrested by the...
Best and Co. Ltd. (Agents of the Nobel's Explosives Co. Ltd.) Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad754
Spencer, Og. C.J.1. The Full Bench having decided that an English incorporated company is not exempt from the tax on companies imposed by Section 110 of the Madras City Municipal Act IV of 1919 by the mere reason of its capital being expressed in sterling, we hare now to determine the third question referred to us, which is whether income derived from the transaction of business outside the City of Madras which is transmitted to Madras to the agents of an English firm for being converted into sterling and remitted to England is part of the gross income of the company upon which the tax is leviable. The same question was raised once before in the Sun Life Assurance Company v. The Corporation of Madras 1922 Mad. 85 but was left undecided.2. The proviso to Rule 7 of schedule IV, Part 11 of the Act provides a scale for assessing the gross income of Companies the head office or a branch or principal office of which is not in the City, and whose gross income 'received in or from the City' ha...
Kunhammad Kutti Vs. Cheria Mammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad787
Wallace, J.1. The decision in this appeal turns on the interpretation to be put upon Ex. B, a gift deed executed by one Parapravan Bavothi Haji in favour of his daughter The donor was a Muhammadan of North Malabar admittedly following the Marumakkathayom law prevalent in these parts and he was the sole survivor and senior member of his tarwad.2. Ex. B recites that he gifts the property 'to you '(in the singula)' 'and then goes on to say that in future except for you and your offspring (Santanam) there is no claim' concern or right of entry for me over this paramba...you and your Santanams should hold the said paramba in possession and enjoy the same as your jenmom.' Both the Lower Courts have held that the form and the circumstances of the gift necessarily lead to the inference that the gift was not for the donee's exclusive benefit but for the children also and that the property gifted it therefore putravakasam property belonging to the donee's tavazhi.3. The 1st defendant in this app...
Ellammal Vs. A.S. Venkataramana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad796
ORDER1. The Subordinate Judge has not found whether the sum payable was actually tendered in time. He is directed to return a finding on this point within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the record in these cases and seven days are allowed to the parties for filing objections to the findings after notice of the return of the same shall have been posted up in this Court.2. [The Subordinate Judge returned a finding that the tender pleaded was not true.3. On return of the finding the cases came again before the Bench as constituted above.]4. The Subordinate Judge has now found against the alleged tender by appellant on November 30th and it has not been suggested that there was a tender on any other day before a petition was filed on. December 2nd that the Court should allow the amount to be deposited in Court. We think that time in this case was of the essence of the contract and that the question of relieving against forfeitures, which arises when a penalty is provided for nonp...
Ammakannu Ayi Vs. a Male Child (Not Named), Minor Son of Palani Ayya A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.324; (1924)47MLJ85
Ramesam, J.1. The facts have been stated by my learned brother whose judgment I have had the advantage of reading and need not be repeated.2. A preliminary question of law raised by the defendant to the Court below and repeated here has first to be dealt with. He contends that, as the plaintiff filed her suit against Rathna-thayi in 1914 and obtained a decree, she has elected her remedy and the present suit is not maintainable. He relies on Scarf v. Jar dine 7 A. C. 345; Morel v. Earl of Westmoreland (1903) 1 K. B. 64. (per Collins M R) on appeal (1904) AC 11; and Moore v. Flanagan (1920) 1 KB 919 at p. 921. He also relies on Kendall v. Hamilton 4 AC 504. Scarf v. Jardtne 7 A.C. 345 is a case of a customer of an old firm of partners selling goods to a new firm consisting of an old partner and a new partner and carrying on business under the old style without notice of the change. In that case, the old firm was liable only on the ground of estoppel and after the plaintiff sued the new f...
Kidambi Tirumalacharyulu Alias Ramanujacharyulu and ors. Vs. Ammisetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ363
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiffs sued in this case to set aside the decree in O.S. No. 274 of 1917 on the file of the Principal Distinct Munsif's Court, Guntur, obtaining against them when they were minors. They sued on the ground that they were not properly represented by the guardian in the suit and that the said guardian was guilty of gross negligence.2. There is no doubt that they were minors at the time of the suit, and both their father and mother were dead. It is also clear that they had no certificated guardian and no natural guardian. It appears that the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 274 of 1917 first applied to the Court to have one K. Ramiah appointed as guardian ad litem and notice was sent to him but he refused to act. The plaintiff then applied for a Court guardian and the Head Clerk of the Court was appointed. The plain-tiffs here in this case urged that the appointment of the Court guardian was illegal because no notice of the application to appoint a Court guardian was sent, as it...
Bhogi Reddi Kumaraswami Vs. Maddekara Narayana Rao Agent of Byram Shah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ468
Wallace, J.1. The only point argued in this appeal is the question of limitation viz., whether defendant's letter Ex. D 1. is an acknowledgment saving the bar. It seems to me quite clear from the terms of that letter that the work as per the agreement to be done by defendant had not then been completed and that the accounts had therefore not been finally settled. This is supported by the finding of the District Munsif that the work was not finished till August 1915. This was a case therefore where the final liability could not be fixed by final accounts until August, 1915. Plaintiff's suit was within 3 years of that date.2. As remarked in Andiappa Chetty v. Alasinga Naidu ILR 36 M 68 in a suit for the balance due on taking accounts an admission that accounts must be taken and settled would be a pertinent acknowledgement. Plaintiff no doubt sues for a definite sum considered by him as due on his accounts but the suit was, in substance, one for accounts as both parties themselves confess...
L. Ramu Naidu and anr. Vs. V. Nayanappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad56
Wallace, J.1. The argument put forward in this case is that an award passed by arbitrators in a pending suit, which merely embodied a compromise of the parties themselves before the arbitrators is not a valid award and that it was the duty of the arbitrators merely to record the compromise and pass it on to the Court to deal with. I am not referred to any reported ruling which supports this proposition. On the other hand, there are two reported rulings. Deonarain Rai v. Jaisri [1885] 5 A.W.N. 259 and Mir Ali v. Muhamad Hussain Sahib [1892] 12 A.W.N. 79 to the contrary, both of which refer to arbitrations in pending suits.2. I cannot see on principle why arbitrators should not accept a compromise of the parties before them and set out their award in terms thereof. Such a proceeding is as much an adjudication of the case as is a decree of a Court founded on a compromise. To admit that an award may be challenged on the ground that the arbitrators had not themselves independently considere...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »