Chennai Court November 1927 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.
Bombay Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council Dindigul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad146
Beaseley, J.1. The defendant, the Municipal Council of Diadigul, purporting to act under Section 92, Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, and Rule 16, Schedule 9 to that Act has, assessed the plaintiff company to companies' tax for the half years ending 30th September 1922, 31st March 1923, 30th September 1923, and each of the half years of 1924 in the sum of Rs. 250 in rFespect of each half year. Under protest the plaintiff company paid this tax and has now filed this suit to recover the sums so paid which amount to Rs. 1,500. The plaintiff's contention is that it does not transact business in Dindigul.2. Before dealing with the facts of this case and the legal arguments, I will refer to the section and the Rule of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, under which the plaintiff company has been assessed by the defendant- Section 92 is headed 'tax on companies' and reads as follows:If the Chairman publishes a notification under Section 80 that a companies tax shall be levi...
The Bombay Company, Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.216
Beasley, J. 1. The defendant, the Municipal Council of Dindigul purporting to act under Section. 92 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, and r. 16 of Sch. IV to that Act has assessed the plaintiff Company to Companies' tax for the half years ending the 30th September, 1922, 31st March, 1923, 30th September, 1923 and each of the half years of 1924 in the sum of Rs. 250 in respect of each half year. Under protest the plaintiff Company paid this tax and has now filed this suit to recover the sums so paid which amount to Rs. 1,500. The plaintiff's contention is that it does not transact business in Dindigul.2. Before dealing with the facts of this case and the legal arguments, I will refer to the section and the rule of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, under which the plaintiff Company has been assessed by the defendant. Suction 92 is headed 'Tax on Companies'' and reads as follows:If the Chairman publishes a Notification under Section. 80 that a Companies' Tax sha...
Md. Abdul Khuddus Sahib and ors. Vs. Md. Ashroof Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad598
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Nidadavole passed under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The petitioner's contention is that the land in dispute is a burial ground and that they as Muhammadans of Aurangabad are entitled to bury their dead there. The learned Magistrate has only addressed himself to the question of possession and has coma to the conclusion that the respondents were in possession and directed that the possession should continue with them. In a case of this kind where certain persons claim to have the right to bury their dead in a burial ground the Magistrate should have addressed himself to the question whether the persons claiming the right exercised that right the occasion arose. It is only in open spaces in a burial ground that new graves are made. The fact that a portion of the ground was ploughed and sown is no ground for thinking that it is not a burial ground. The petitioners obtained a declaratory decree...
Mahammad Abdul Khuddus Sahib and ors. Vs. Muhammad Ashroff Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.100
This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Nidadavole passed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners' contention is that the land in dispute is a burial ground and that they as Muhammadans of Aurang-abad are entitled to bury their dead there. The learned Magistrate has only addressed himself to the question of possession and has come to the conclusion that the respondents were in possession and directed that the possession should continue with them. In a case of this kind where Certain persons claim to have the right to bury their dead in a burial ground the Magistrate should have addressed him self to the question whether the persona claiming the right exercised that right when occasions arose. It is only in open spaces in a burial ground that new graves are made. The fact that a portion of the ground was plouged and sown is no ground for thinking that it is not a burial ground. The petitioners obtained a declaratory decree...
Konduru Dasaratharama Reddi and ors. Vs. Indoor Narasa Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad601; (1928)55MLJ109
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. It is to be regretted that having regard to the points that finally emerged and were argued in this second appeal on behalf of the appellants, the only parties interested, namely defendants-respondents' 1 and 2, should not have been represented before us and we should have had to hear this second appeal practically ex parte. We are, however, obliged to Mr. T.V. Muthukrishna Aiyar, the learned vakil who appeared for the 16th respondent, for his having as amicus curiae placed before us the arguments on behalf of those parties.2. We have come to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed and that the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit being set aside, a decree should be passed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants with regard to part of their claim.3. The plaintiffs' suit was on a mortgage for the sale of the mortgage securities. The facts either as admitted or as finally established are these. The mortgage was jointly in favour of the plaintiffs' family cal...
In Re: Komaragiri Bitchalugadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ444
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Guntur, recommending the quashing of the conviction of the accused under Section 24-b of the Criminal Tribe? Act, VI of 1924. Under Section 24-b, if a member of a registered criminal tribe is found in any place under such circumstances as to satisfy the court that he was waiting for an opportunity to commit theft or robbery he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, etc. All the evidence against the accused is that he was found near a pond and that he had a pair of scissors and a box of matches. I do not think this would in any way amount to an offence under Section 24-b. As the Sessions Judge has rightly remarked, the facts proved do not make out that the accused was waiting for an opportunity to commit theft or robbery. I therefore set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and direct his immediate release if he has not been already released....
M. and S.M. Ry. Co., Ltd. Vs. Gangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad484
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 5 in O.S. 639 of 1922, on the file of the District Munsif, Ranipet, is the petitioner. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of money from defendants 4 and 5 in the following circumstances: One Govindaswami, who was an employee of the S. I. Ry Co. died, leaving a sum of Rs. 400 to his credit in the Provident Fund. Before his death he had nominated his mother as the person to whom this money should be paid. Afterwards the Railway Company paid the amount to defendant 4, that is, Govindaswami's widow, as she produced a succession certificate as her authority for receiving the money. The plaintiff is the sister of the deceased Govindaswami. She instituted the suit as the heir of Govindaswami's mother saying that, as her mother died without claiming the money, she is in law entitled to get it and not the widow. The Railway Company claims immunity from payment under Section 16, Act 7, 1889, or the ground that they made the payment in...
Komaragiri Bitchalugadu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad479; 108Ind.Cas.901
ORDERDevadoss, J. 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Guntur recommending the quashing of the conviction of the accused under Section 34 (6) of the Criminal Tribes Act VI of 1924, Under Section 24 (b) it a member of a registered criminal tribe is found in any place under such circumstances as to satisfy the Court that he was waiting for an opportunity to commit theft or robbery, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years etc, All the evidence against the accused is that he was found near a pond and that he had a pair of scissors and a box of matches. I do not think this would in any way amount to an offence under Section 24 (6). As the Sessions Judge has rightly remarked, the facts proved do not make out that the accused was waiting for an opportunity to commit theft or robbery. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and direct his immediate release if he has not been already released....
In Re: Kader Batcha Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ442
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this revision petition is that the Magistrate inspected the scene of occurrence without notice to the accused. The Magistrate in his report says that he informed the vakils of his intention to inspect the place and the accused was present at the time of the inspection. There is nothing in this ground.2. The next point is that the Magistrate has imported into the case impressions received by him at the time of inspection. A Magistrate is entitled to inspect a place in order to understand the evidence. But if he receives an impression which is in favour of one side or the other, he should give an opportunity to the side against which he forms an impression to explain away if possible the impression created in his mind by the inspection. In this case the whole question turned upon there being an entrance or not. The impression that the Magistrate received at the inspection was that the entrance was an old one, for in his opinion it was made up ...
The Chairman, Municipal Council Vs. D.R. Nageswara Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ642
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the Order of acquittal by the 2nd class Magistrate of Chingleput of the counter-petitioner in the prosecution launched by the Conjeevaram Municipality under Sections 195 and 321 (7) of the District Municipalities Act. The Magistrate held that the counter-petitioner was not bound to take out a license for the maintenance of a thatched pandal over his verandah. Mr. Narasimhachariar for the Municipality contends that the license which was granted to the counter-petitioner expired on the 31st March, 1926, and he, not having taken out a license for the year 1926-27, is liable under the Act to the penalty.2. The question turns upon the construction of Section 195 of the District Municipalities Act, which is in the following terms:No external roof, verandah, pandal or wall of a building shall be constructed or reconstructed of grass, leaves, mats or other inflamable materials except with the permission of the Chairman.In this case the thatc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »