Chennai Court June 1927 Judgments
Kaikhushroo Rustomji Wallace Vs. the Bombay Company, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ278
Viscount Sumner, J.1. This action was brought by the appellant, Mr. Wallace, to recover a balance of commission, alleged to be due to him under an agreement dated the 9th February, 1920, between himself and the respondents, his former employers. Ultimately the question is one of construction, and the words which are chiefly material are these:1918-1919 Accounts.--You will receive a sum equivalent to 5 per cent of the nett profits (as shown in the books) of the Bombay Branch of the Bombay Company, Limited, as accruing from the sales of all goods for which you were salesman, whether on purchase or joint account.In addition to this ... you will be credited with a further sum equivalent to 5 per cent. of the nett profits as shown in the books of the Bombay Branch ... as having accrued from the sale of all goods sold on joint account and for which you were salesman during the years 1916-1917, 1917-1918, and 1918-1919.1919-1920 Accounts.--As regards other goods sold by you prior to the 7th F...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Maniara Kuppathan Alias Kuppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ739
1. The accused in this case has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of North Arcot for having murdered his wife Chinnapillai. The accused is a barber, but the deceased was an adi dravida. She was previously married and after having been abandoned by her husband was married by the accused and had been abandoned by him 3 months before her death. There is the evidence of two witnesses for the actual occurrence, P. Ws. 5 and 10. P.W. 5 is a child of seven years who was related to the deceased as her niece. There is no reason to disbelieve either the evidence of P.W. 5 or that of P.W. 10. But apart from the evidence of these two witnesses there are confessional statements made by the accused. The first statement he made is Ex. N to the Village Magistrate on the 3rd of November.2. The learned vakil for the accused drew our attention to Rule 195 of the Criminal Rules of Practice which prohibits Village Magistrates from reducing to writing any confession or statement whatever made by an accus...
Tag this Judgment!Maniara Kuppathan Alias Kuppan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.667
1. The accused in this case has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of North Arcot for having murdered his wife Chinnamma. The accused is a barber, but the deceased was an Adi Dravida. She was previously married and after having been abandoned by her husband was married by the accused and had been abandoned by him 3 months before her death. There is the evidence of two witnesses for the actual occurrence, P.Ws. Nos. 5 and 10. Prosecution Witness No. 5 is a child of 7 years who was related to the deceased as her neice. There is no reason to disbelieve either the evidence of P.W. No. 5 or that of P.W. No. 10. But apart from the evidence of there two witnesses there are confessional statements made by the accused. The 1st statement he made is Ex. N to the Village Magistrate on the 3rd of November.2. The learned Vakil for the accused drew our attention to Rule 195 of the Criminal Rules of Practice which, prohibits Village Magistrates from reducing to writing any confession or statement wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›