Chennai Court November 1928 Judgments
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chockalinga Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad201; (1929)56MLJ216
ORDERReilly, J.1. The two appeals to which this Revision Petition relates have not been heard upon the merits, as the Sessions Judge has ordered a re-trial of the case in consequence of what he regards as illegalities in the original trial.2. On 26th April, 1928, the trying Magistrate refused to adjourn the case when the vakil for the accused intimated his intention of making an application to the High Court for a transfer. The learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that the Magistrate in refusing an adjournment on that occasion acted in violation of Section 526 (8), Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the intimation of intention to apply for a transfer was not made in the course of the trial, which had been closed before it was made, though judgment had not then been pronounced, and therefore the Magistrate in refusing to adjourn the case did not contravene the provisions of Section 526 (8). It appears that before the Sessions Judge the Public Pros...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chockalingam Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.274
ORDERReilly, J.1. The two appeals to which this revision petition relates have not been heard upon the merits, as the Sessions Judge has ordered a re-trial of the case in consequence of what he regards as illegalities in the original trial.2. On 26th April, 1928, the trying Magistrate refused to adjourn the case when the Vakil for the accused intimated his intention of making an application to the High Court for a transfer. The learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that the Magistrate in refusing an adjournment on that occasion acted in violation of Section 526 (8), Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the intimation of intention to apply for a transfer was not made in the coarse of the trial, which had been closed before it was made, though judgment had not then been pronounced, and, therefore, the Magistrate in refusing to adjourn the case did not contravene the provisions of Section 526 (8). It appears that before the Sessions Judge the Public Prose...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Massey and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad453; (1929)1MLJ451
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. The only question I propose to ask myself in this case is whether or no there is anything to distinguish it from the Scottish case of The Scottish Shire, Line, Limited v. Lethem (1912) 6 Tax Cases 91. That was a very strong Court consisting of the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Dundas, Lord Salvesen and Lord Guthrie. Therefore I should feel myself constrained and do feel myself constrained to follow those eminent Judges unless it can shown that there is either something on the facts to distinguish this case from that or that there is a material variation in the language respectively of the Indian and the corresponding English section. I say advisedly material because Indian draftsmen for some reason are always making little changes of language which do not mean anything at all vital to the true construction of the Act. With regard to the facts I am unable to see that anybody could argue that there is the slightest distinction between the relation of Massey ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Srinivasa Varadachariar Vs. Runganayaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad349; 118Ind.Cas.291
1. This appeal is the last stage in a prolonged litigation. In the year 1913, the respondent, a widow whose husband had predeceased his father sued her father-in-law for maintenance. At the time of the suit, she was a minor and was represented in it by her father as her guardian. During the pendency of the suit, her father-in-law died and his surviving son now the appellant who had succeeded to his property, was brought on to the record in his place. In January 1914, her father, on her behalf entered into a compromise with the appellant. His vakil certified that the compromise was beneficial to the minor. The Subordinate Judge sanctioned the compromise and a decree was passed on it. The respondent reached her majority on 15th August 1915 and on 1st September filed a suit to set aside the compromise decree. Her father could not, of course, impeach he compromise himself but there is every reason to believe that it was he that set her up to impeach it. Her plaint makes it perfectly clear ...
Tag this Judgment!(Basava) Simon and ors. Vs. (Mylavarapu) Rangayya Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad339
1. This is an appeal under, Clause 15, Letters Patent, against the judgment of Spencer, J., in Rangayya Naidu v. Rasava Simon : AIR1926Mad594 , dismissing the plaintiff's suit for redemption.2. The facts are briefly these: The suit property belonged to one Anga Narasimhalu who died leaving a widow Rangamma and two daughters. The widow put forward Anga Ramaswamy as having been adopted to her deceased husband. On 6th April 1902, the suit property was mortgaged in favour of defendant 1 by the adopted son represented by his guardian, the adoptive mother. On 2nd May 1906. another mortgage, Ex. B, was executed by the widow as the guardian of the adopted son, in which the prior mortgage was merged. The plaintiff's suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises was instituted for the redemption of this mortgage, Ex. B. After executing the said mortgage the widow Rangamma sold the suit property to the plaintiff's father on 2nd July 1910. On 6th July 1910, the adopted son who had attained m...
Tag this Judgment!Sanna Govappa Vs. Rodda Sanna Govappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad482
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The suit from which this second appeal arises was one instituted by the plaintiff, respondent 1, for the purpose of setting aside a mortgage decree obtained by defendants 2 and 3 and recovering the properties which were at the auction held in execution of such decree purchased by defendant 1. Defendant 1 is appellant 1 before us. The plaintiff's claim was that under a will of Honnappa his second widow Gangamma obtained the suit properties absolutely, that she in her turn by her will bequeathed these items of property to the plaintiff, that the mortgage suit, though it related to a mortgage made by Honnappa, proceeded making only Gangamma party defendant in the action and when after the preliminary decree was passed she died the plaintiff in that suit without making him the plaintiff in this action, as the legal representative, somehow made the senior widow defendant 4 as the legal representative and proceeded to get the decree absolute and had the property sold...
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu Pillai Vs. Krishna Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad704; 117Ind.Cas.144
Phillips, J.1. In this case, the petitioner paid money into Court with a view to setting aside an execution sale. His petition was ordered but in appeal the appellate Court held that the order was bad, because notice had not gone to the judgment-debtor and ordered such notice to be given and the petition retried. When the petition came on for trial, the wife of the judgment-debtor appeared and asked to be appointed guardian of the judgment-debtor on the ground that the judgment-debtor became insane. The District Munsif found that the judgment-debtor was not insane and, that he was not dead, having been seen some nine months previously. Notwithstanding this, he appointed the wife as the representative of the judgment-debtor relying on an obiter dictum in Lala Gobind Prasad v. Judip Sahay : AIR1925Pat369 . With all respect to the learned Judge, the course suggested by him that a person can be appointed to look after the affairs of an individual who has disappeared until his return or til...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Vytheswara Iyer Vs. K.M.R.M.L. Kumarappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.247
William Watkin Phillips, J.1. In this case the petitioner is the testamentary guardian of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit in the District Munsif's Court. Notice was taken to the petitioner to Calcutta although he was stated in the guardian petition to be living at Mettupalayam. Notice was returned unserved for want of sufficient address. A second notice was taken to Calcutta to the identical address and this was returned unserved for want of time owing to holidays in the Calcutta Court. On this the respondent applied to make the brother of the minors their guardian, but he refused. Then, he filed an application supported by an affidavit in which it was alleged, firstly, that the testamentary guardian had refused to act as guardian and, secondly, that the minor's mother was dead, whereas she is admittedly alive It was then stated that there was no other person interested in the said minors and the appointment of the head clerk of the Court was asked for. Accordingly, the head clerk ...
Tag this Judgment!Basana Simon and ors. Vs. Mylavarapu Rangayya Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.105
In L.P.A. No. 186 of 1925.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Spencer, J., in S.A. No. 197 of 1923 See 94 Ind. Cas. 639-[Ed.] dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for redemption.2. The facts are briefly these. The suit property belonged to one Anga Narasimhulu who died leaving a widow Rangamma and two daughters. The widow put forward Anga Ramasami as having been adopted to her deceased husband. On the 6th of April, 1902, the suit property was mortgaged in favour of the 1st defendant by the adopted son represented by the guardian, the adoptive mother. On the 2nd of May, 1906, another mortgage Ex. B was executed by the widow as the guardian of the adopted son in which the prior mortgage was merged. The plaintiffs' suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises was instituted for the redemption of this mortgage, Ex. B. After executing the said mortgage the widow Rangamma sold the suit property to the plaintiffs' father on the 2nd of July, 191...
Tag this Judgment!Elavarthi Peddabba Reddi Vs. Iyyala Varada Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad236; (1929)56MLJ570
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. The petitioner is being prosecuted for defamation in respect of certain statements made by him as a witness before arbitrators. He has applied to this Court for quashing the proceedings against him on the ground that no indictment for defamation would lie in respect of statements made in answer to questions by counsel. The question for determination is : 'Is a witness absolutely privileged as regards statements made by him on oath in answer to questions by counsel or Court except as to a charge for perjury?' So far as the Criminal Law of this country is concerned, defamation is defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 499 contains ten exceptions and a person who pleads privilege has to bring himself within one or more of the ten exceptions. The first exception and the 9th exception afford sufficient protection to a witness; in the case of the first exception, the imputation should be true and for the public good, and in the case of the ninth exceptio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »