Chennai Court April 1927 Judgments
Anthoni Udaiyan Vs. Royappudayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ653
ORDERWallace, J.1. It is first argued that the infliction of separate sentences for offences under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, is illegal, on the ground that the force used to rescue is neither more nor less than, but the same as, the force which caused hurt. I am aware that certain learned Judges of this Court sitting singly have upheld a similar contention with reference to separate sentences for offences of rioting and causing hurt, when the force used which constitutes an ingredient of the rioting was also the force which caused the hurt. (See Criminal Revision Case No. 248 of 1924 and Criminal Revision Case No. 982 of 1926). But I am not able to accept that view. Causing hurt and using force are not the same thing and the word 'force' does not appear in the definition of 'hurt'. The use of criminal force is no doubt an ingredient of the offence of rioting and the use of force may be' an ingredient in the offence of rescuing catt...
Tag this Judgment!Sugali Pedda Ganglegadu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad973a
Wallace, J.1. Accused's previous convictions were under Sections 457 and 380 or 411. I. P. C. Of these sections only Section 457 appears in Schedule 1, Criminal Tribes Act, One should in these cases take the view most favourable to the accused and assume therefore that for purposes of enhanced punishment, the previous convictions were under Section 411, and therefore the Criminal Tribes Act Section 23 (1) (b) does not apply.2. Accused is therefore an old offender under Section 75, I. P. C., and has been now convicted of an offence under Section 382, I. P. C. I reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Singali Pedda Ganglegadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.464
Wallace, J.1. Accused's previous convictions were under Sections 457 and 380 or 411, Indian Penal Code. Of these Sections only Section 457 appears in Schedule I of the Criminal Tribes Act. One should in these cases take the view most favourable to the accused and assume, therefore, that for the purposes of enhanced punishment, the previous convictions were under Sections 411, and, therefore, the Criminal Tribes Act Section 23(1)(b) does not apply.2. Accused is, therefore, an old offender under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code and has been now convicted of an offence under Section 382, Indian Penal Code. I reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V.A. Gopala Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad403
ORDERWallace, J.1. I am not prepared to transfer the cases on the ground shown. If the Bench itself thinks that the cases should be transferred, it should move the matter officially and not leave it to the party to move. The petitions are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co., Ltd., by Its Agent Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ407
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition involves a question of some importance, namely, the interpretation and effect, with reference to the onus of proof, of the wording of the new Railway form risk note B.2. The facts of this case, admitted for the purpose of the argument, are that the respondent consigned 184 bags of groundnut from Jalarpet to the Salt Cottaurs Railway Station on the petitioner's Railway, that these bags were loaded and conveyed in a single waggon, that the train on reaching Arkonam was shunted into a siding where it remained for four hours, that the seals were intact when the waggon reached Arkonam, but that, when the train was about to leave Arkonam, the Station Master noticed that the one seal had been tampered with and put on his own seal, and that, on arrival at the Salt Cottaurs, it was found that one of the bags was missing. It may be inferred, and is not disputed, that the bag was stolen from the waggon while it was in the siding at Arkonam.3. The respond...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Swaminatha Aiyar and ors. Vs. M. Guruswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad940; (1927)53MLJ457
Beasley, J.1. The plaintiffs riled a suit in this High Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and presented the plaint bearing a five-rupee stamp. The Taxing Officer has rejected the plaint as insufficiently stamped as in his opinion the plaint should have been stamped with a hundred and fifty rupees stamp as provided for in the High Court-Fees Rules, 1925, Appendix II, which provides that in respect of a plaint or special case under Order 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the value of the subject-matter does not exceed Rs. 10,000 a fee of Rs. 150 is to be levied. The plaintiffs contend that this is a suit in respect of which the relief claimed is incapable of valuation and that the Court-fees leviable by reason of the High Court-Fees Rules, 1925, Appendix II cannot be applied to such a case. The learned Advocate-General in support of the Taxing Officer's decision, however, contends firstly, that the decision of the Taxing Officer is final and cannot be called in q...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Ramanujacharyulu and ors. Vs. Alapati Sriramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1033
1. This is an appeal against the decree in a suit filed for the removal of the defendants-appellants from the trusteeship of the plaint temple and for the framing of a scheme. The lower Court has ordered the removal of the trustees and framed a scheme. Objection is now taken mainly on the ground that the suit is bad as not being in accordance with the sanction granted to . the plaintiffs by the Collector. In that sanction the Collector granted permission to oust the present trustees by filing a scheme suit. The contention for the appellants is that, under Ss. 92 and 93, Civil P. C., under which sections this sanction was granted, the various reliefs mentioned in Section 92 are mutually exclusive, and that when a suit is filed for any one of these reliefs there must be specific sanction to that effect. The logical effect of this argument is that if sanction is given under Clause (g) for settling a scheme no orders could be passed by the Court directing accounts in the future or declarin...
Tag this Judgment!Medai Delavoi Thirumalayappa Vs. Karuppayi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad375
Wallace, J.1. The point for decision in these civil revision petitions is whether the village of Yellainaikanpatti of' which the petitioner is an inamdar, has been shown to be an estate under the' Madras Estates Land Act. This is a mixed question of fact and law.2. The plaintiffs are tenants of the village and sued in the Revenue Court of the Sub-Collector of Tuticorin for pattas on the footing that they possess occupancy rights. That Court held that the village was. not an estate and dismissed the suit. The District Judge on appeal held that 'the village is an estate, and remanded the suits for hearing on the other issues. The defendant comes up in revision. His main contention is that the District Judge has not rightly understood the law on the matter, and has passed his judgment not on the evidence, but on unfounded surmises of his own.3. The onus of showing that they are entitled to bring suits in the special Revenue Court lies undoubtedly on the plaintiffs. Both the lower Courts h...
Tag this Judgment!R.E. Muhammad Qasim Ravuther Vs. R.G. Nagaraja Moopanar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad813
1. These appeals are against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in the matter of appointment of a Receiver in O.S. No. 81 of 1926 on his file. That suit was filed by the plaintiff to declare that he is the reversionary heir of the Kapistalam Estate. The last male owner was one Chandrapakasa Moopannar who died in 1869, leaving a widow who died in 1884. On her death 'their daughter Seethalakshmi Ammal succeeded. She died on 9th March 1926. Her husband Krishnaswami Mooppannar died on 29th April 1926. On Seethalakshmi Ammal's death there were three sets of claimants first, the plaintiff, who claims as the son of Seethalakshmi Animal's daughter; second defendant 1, who claims as the adopted son of Seethadakshmi Animal's husband; and third, defendants 2 to 5 who claim as dayadis of the last male owner. Defendants 1, 2 and 5 have compromised between themselves and now present a united front to the plaintiff who is suing for a declaration of his title and for the possession of so mu...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Doraiswami Ayyar Vs. Coimbatore Easwara Sahaya Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad265
Beasley, J.1. The petition for winding up is dismissed The only ground seriously put forward is that there is a debt owing to the petitioner, the payment of which he has demanded and there has been a failure by the company to comply with that demand within 21 days, the statutory period, and that entitles the petitioner to come before the Court and ask as a matter of right for the winding up of the company. It is vague statement made in the petition about the company being unable to pay its debts. That is not supported by a single figure or by any fact which will enable me to come to the conclusion that the company is not able to pay beyond its failure to comply with the statutory demand. That is not sufficient. The company in its affidavit puts forward the defence whilst submitting that the money is with it in fixed deposit that it is entitled to a claim against this money because under the Articles of Association and Rules of the Company, that money is deposited as security as it were...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »