Chennai Court January 1925 Judgments
In Re: Mania Manikha Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.530
ORDER1. I am asked in this criminal revision case to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Trichinopoly by which under the provisions, as I take it, of Section 437 of the Cr. P.C. (and not 436 as it appears in the papers) he directed, setting aside the order of discharge passed by the First Class Magistrate of Udayarpalayam that all the accused in the case be committed for trial to the Sessions Court of Trichinopoly.2. The order of the First Class Magistrate of Udayarpalayam was passed as the result of the enquiry into the case which was triable by a Court of Session and under the provisions of Section 209 Clause (1) of the Cr. P C. The learned District Magistrate has in his order set out as follows: 'I direct that under Section 436, Cr. P.C., that the accused be committed for trial for the offences for which they have been charged. Warrants will issue for the arrest of the accused and their production before the Court of Session.' This order was made by him on a criminal revi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad570
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This is an unusual case not so much from the circumstances of the crime but from the walk in life of the accused. She is a widow some 29 years of age, who was undergoing a course of training to fit her to be a teacher in the Government Training School at Conjeevaram. She had six months further training to undergo before she became qualified to earn a salary as paid teacher. One of the pupils at the school was a little girl, Kamalakanni by name, and about 9 or 10 years old. In the view we take of this case, it does not matter what her exact age was. It is a short and terrible story. It is not necessary to dissect the evidence; the learned Judge has done it very carefully and the story that emerges is simply this : This woman decoyed this child away from the school, took her to Walajabad about ten miles off, had the ornaments with which the unfortunate child was bedecked taken off and it is practically undisputable that those ornaments were afterwards sold by her. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kannammal Alias Maunammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.695
1. [The accused was a widow some 29 years of age who was undergoing a course of training to fit her to be a teacher in the Government Training School at Conjeevaram. She decoyed one of the pupils of the school about 9 or 10 years of age, took her to a place 10 miles, had her ornaments taken off and afterwards sold them to two goldsmiths and received the sale-proceeds. The next morning the child's body was found floating in water some 4 miles from the place and was very much decomposed. It was clear the child died of asphyxia and the balance of probability was that the child was dead before the body was put into the tank. The accused while she admitted that she was a party to removing the ornaments denied the murder and stated that the removal was at the instance of a person to whom the child's father owed money. On a consideration of the evidence, the Court came to the conclusion that the accused was responsible for the murder of the child to hush up the robbery she committed by taking...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Ramanujachariar Vs. T.V. Kailasam Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1067; (1925)49MLJ386
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1.The petitioner in this case was charged before the Stationary 2nd class Magistrate of Mannargudi with an offence under Section 159 read with Section 207 of the Local Boards Act (Madras Act XIV of 1920). He raised a plea in bar of the prosecution on the ground that for the same offence he was previously charged in C.C. No. 215 of 1923 on the file of the same Court, that the complaint was then withdrawn by the local authority and that the order of acquittal then passed by the Magistrate under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code was a bar to the present prosecution. The learned Counsel for the District Board of Tanjore has contended before me that according to the scheme of the Act the offence consisted not in the encroachment alleged to have been made by the accused but in his failing to comply with any direction lawfully given to him within the terms of Clause (c) of Section 207 of that Act and that therefore the local authority was entitled again and...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.A. Muthiah Chettiar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Venkatasubbarayulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad160; 90Ind.Cas.1033; (1925)49MLJ394
1. The only question that arises in this appeal is one of limitation. The suit is brought on a mortgage deed dated 20th September, 1890, in 1916, the mortgage money not being payable under the deed until 1904. There is also a clause in the deed that in default of payment of interest the whole amount, principal and interest, up to that date should become due. It is argued before us in the first place that this default clause leaves no option to the mortgagee as to whether he shall or shall not enforce it; but on a construction of the language of the document which is translated in this Court as follows: - 'If I should fail to pay... you shall be at liberty to recover, ' it is clear that the option is reserved with the mortgagee to enforce this clause at his pleasure. That being so, the question is whether the period of limitation started to run on the date of default, or when the money became due under the terms of the main contract, namely 1904, under Article 132 of the Limitation Act....
Tag this Judgment!Thadiappan Alias Ramiah Vs. Veeraperumal thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1139; 90Ind.Cas.157
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The petitioner in this ease was the complainant and the respondents were Accused 4 and 5. The Sub-Magistrate found that no case had been made out: against Accused 4 and 5 and discharged them. But at the same time, he made an order asking that the complainant should pay Accused 4 and 5 compensation of Rs. 30 each. The portion of the Sub-Magistrate's judgment that deals with his order for payment of compensation is in the following terms:'As no case is made out against any of the accused, I discharge them under Section 253(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code,' I further find that Accused 4 and accused 5 have been vexatiously added as Accused. The complainant was directed to show cause why he should not be ordered under Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, to pay compensation to Accused 4 and Accused 5. The complainant had no sufficient cause to show. I, therefore, further direct that the complainant do pay to each of the accused, Accused 4 and Accused 5, a co...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Nayudu Vs. K.N.S. Subbaraya thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1101
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises in connection with the execution of a razinama decree passed in O.S. No. 80 of 1918 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. The appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent is the assigneedecree-holder and the other respondents are the remaining three defendants in O.S. No. 80 of 1918 who are the sons of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, the decree-holder. The compromise decree was assigned by the next friend of the plaintiff-decree-holder to the present 1st respondent and he presented E.P. No. 4 of 1923 praying for the recognition of the assignment and for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 58,285-15 by the sale of the properties as per terms of the decree. The defendants in the suit opposed the application. The Subordinate Judge passed an order recognising the assignment subject to certain conditions and also allowing the execution of the decree. It is this order that is now appealed against by the 1s...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Ramanuja Chariar Vs. T.V. Kailasam Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR38Mad870
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner in this case was charged before the Stationary Second-class Magistrate of Mannargudi with an offence under Section 159 read with Section 207 of the Local Boards Act (Madras Act 14 of 1920). He raised a plea in bar of the prosecution on the ground that for the same offence he was previously charged in C.C. No. 215 of 1923 on the file of the same Court, that the complaint was then withdrawn by the local authority and that the order of acquittal then passed by the Magistrate under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code was a, bar to the present prosecution. The learned Counsel for the District Board of Tanjore has contended before me that according to the scheme of the Act the offence consisted not in the encroachment alleged to have been made by the accused but in his failing to comply with any direction lawfully given to him within the terms of Clause (c) of Section 207 of that Act and that therefore the local authority was entitled again and....
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusami Naicker Vs. T.P.L.S. Subramania Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1246
1. The appellant is a creditor who consented to the composition which was accepted by the Court. He has no right to object to the sale of the charged property by the District Munsif's Court. The proper person to take proceedings under the Insolvency Act is the Official Receiver or the Special Receiver, whosoever is appointed. In this case the Special Receiver did apply to the District Court to stop the sale and his application was refused by the District Court. The appellant who is a creditor now applied in the District Court for the same relief which was denied to the Special Receiver. The Special Receiver represented all the unsecured creditors in previous proceedings and the order against him is binding on all the unsecured creditors. The respondent is a secured creditor and an unsecured creditor cannot move the Court in insolvency unless the Official Receiver or Special Receiver has refused to act in the matter. Here he has acted and failed. The appellant is not competent to mainta...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswami Naicker Vs. T.P.L.S. Subramania Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.460
1. The appellant is a creditor who consented to the composition which was accepted by the Court. He has no right to object to the sale of the charged property by the District Munsif's Court, The proper person to take proceedings under the Insolvency Act is the Official Receiver or the Special Receiver whosoever is appointed. In this case the Special Receiver did apply to the District Court to stop the sale and his application was refused by the District Court. The appellant who is a creditor now applies in the District Court for the same relief which was denied to the Special Receiver. The Special Receiver represented all the unsecured creditors in previous proceedings and the order against him is binding on all the unsecured creditors. The respondent is a secured creditor and an unsecured creditor cannot move the Court in insolvency unless the Official Receiver or Special Receiver has refused to act in the matter. Here he has acted and failed. The appellant is not competent to maintai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »