Chennai Court April 1928 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.
Municipal Council Vs. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ495
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. Cr.R.C. Nos. 852 and 861 of 1927. - In these two petitions, the only question that needs consideration is whether there was a notification under Section 249(1) of the District Municipalities Act. The Lower Court has addressed itself to the question of the resolution of the Council. Evidently it was misled by the cross-examination on behalf of the accused. If there was a valid notification under Section 249(1) of the District Municipalities Act, the persons who carry on the trades mentioned in the notification would be bound to take out licenses. The notification that is now produced is dated 26th January, 1926, and Mr. Jayarama Aiyar contends that there was no resolution of the Council before that date authorising the publication of the notification. No doubt, in the evidence of the first witness he speaks of the first resolution of the Council of 2nd February, 1926. From that it cannot be inferred that there was no previous resolution. This is a question of fact wh...
In Re: Muhammad Salia Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ624
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. Several points are urged by Mr. Vaz in this case and the only point that needs consideration is whether the Magistrate who tried the case was justified in overlooking certain documents filed by the defence at the close of the case. One of them is a telegram purported to have been sent by the 1st accused to the 2nd accused on 1st April, 1926. Another is a receipt for 12 annas for the cost of the telegram. The third is the post card said to have been written by the 2nd accused to the 1st accused in reply to the telegram on the 1st April, 1926 from Madura and the fourth is a railway ticket from Egmore to Madura, dated 4th April, 1926. These documents were put in along with the statement of the accused. The Magistrate remarked:These records have not been put in through proper channel. Nor1 have they been subjected to cross-examination. And, therefore, I refrain from commenting upon these unproved records as they have not been exhibited in this case.2. Where a document i...
(Lambadi) Latchma Naik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad252
ORDERDevadoss, J. 1. The only point in this case Is whether the prosecution of the petitioner for a first offence after the offence has been compounded is legal. It is in evidence that the Tahsildar, who was em-powered to compound forest offences, compounded the offence with the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 8. His successor not being satisfied with the action of his predecessor has instituted their prosecution and there is some evidence that the trees which were said to have been cut, were more than those estimated by the previous Tahsildar. The mere fact that sufficient compensation was not taken from the offender is no ground for starting a prosecution, for under Section 55, Forest Act 5 of 1882, no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property after an offence has been compounded. Para. 2, Section 55 is as follows:On the payment of such sum of money or of such value or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the accused person, if in custody, shall be discharg...
Municipal Chairman Vs. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.210
ORDERDevadoss, J.Criminal Revision cases Nos. 852 and 861 of 1927.1. In these two petitions the only question that needs consideration is whether there was a Notification under Section 249(1) of the District Municipalities Act. The lower Court has addressed itself to the question of the resolution of the Council. Evidently it was misled by the cross-examination on behalf of the accused. If there was a valid Notification under Section 249(1) of the District Municipalities Act, the persons who carry on the trades mentioned in the Notification would be bound to take out licenses. The Notification that is now produced is dated 26th January, 1926, and Mr.' Jayaratna Iyer contends that there was no resolution of the Council before the date authorising the publication of the Notification. No doubt, in the evidence of the 1st witness he speaks of the resolution of the Council of 2nd February, 1926. From that it cannot be inferred that there was no previous re-solution. This is a question of fa...
In Re: Lambadi Latohma Naik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.241
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. The only point in this case is whether the prosecution of the petitioner for a first offence after the offence has been compounded is legal, It is in evidence that the Tahsildar, who was empowered to compound forest offences, compounded the offence with the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 8. His successor not being: satisfied with the action of his predecessor has instituted their prosecution and there is some evidence thai; the trees which were said to have been cut were more than those estimated by the previous Tahsildar. The mere fact that sufficient compensation was not taken from the offender is no ground for starting a prosecution, for under Section 55 of the Forest Act V of 1882, no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property after an offence has been compounded. The second paragraph of Section 55 is as follows: 2. 'On the payment of such sum of money, or of such value, or both, as the case may be, to such officer, the accused person, if in...
Thiruvendipuram Chengalamma Garu and ors. Vs. Vemasani Veeraraghava Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1124; 114Ind.Cas.340; (1928)55MLJ506
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits filed on two mortgages executed by defendants 1 to 3, appellants, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in each of the suits. The deeds were mortgage deeds without possession and they contain a personal covenant to pay the amount due on the mortgage. In each of the suits the plaintiff, after setting out the mortgage and the consideration, prayed for a decree for the amounts due. The plaintiff in Appeal No. 100 prayed for the usual mortgage decree for Rs. 38,975-8-9 with costs and further interest and the plaintiff in Appeal No. 101 for Rs. 39,515-15-8 with costs and further interest. Execution of the mortgage document was admitted by the defendants, but the defences raised were that the documents were not properly attested as required by law in that the attesting witnesses were not present when the executants executed the documents and that there was failure of consideration as regards a portion of the sums claimed, that the...
Sreeram Ramakottiah and ors. Vs. Chintalapudi Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1172; (1928)55MLJ576
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. Cr.R.C. Nos. 969 and 970 of 1927.--The point raised by Mr. Ethiraj in these two cases is that the judgment of the Bench was not signed by all the members of the Bench and that, therefore, it is no judgment at all. Under Section 265, Criminal Procedure Code, judgments have to be prepared by the Presiding Officer of the Court. Under Clause (2) the Government may authorise any Bench of Magistrates empowered to try offences summarily to prepare the aforesaid record or judgment by means of an officer appointed in this behalf by the Court to which such Bench is immediately subordinate, and the record or judgment so prepared shall be signed by each member of such Bench taking part in the proceedings. Clause (3) is as follows:If no such authorisation be given, the record prepared by a member of the Bench and signed as aforesaid shall be the proper record.2. The contention of Mr. Ethiraj is that in the absence of authorisation under Clause (2) by the Government, a record pre...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.L.A.R. Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1229; (1928)55MLJ600
1. The assessees here are a Nattukottai Chetti firm who trade under the vilasam of A.L.A.R. and their primary business is'the usual Nattukottai Chetti business of banking and money-lending. They also trade in other ways and under the style of Ramaswami & Co., did a considerable piece-goods business in Madras which was opened in 1910. A.L.A.R'! traded almost entirely on borrowed capital. The question is whether they are entitled to deduct from their income-tax assessment interest paid on that part of the borrowed capital which they had put into Ramaswami & Co. That branch of their business was unsuccessful. It had to be closed in 1924 and it was found to have sustained a loss of Rs. 11,00,000 odd. Substantially, two points were put forward against the claim of the assessees to make the present deduction. It was said first that the business of Ramaswami & Co. was quite separate and distinct from that of A.L.A.R. and that interest paid on money devoted to the purpose of providing trading ...
Vaidyanatha thevar Vs. E.R.S. Murugiahan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1077
Devadoss, J.1. The petitioner and the respondent were candidates for the office of President of the Union Board of Tiruthuraipundi. An election was held on 27th February 1928 for the office when 9 votes were polled. The petitioner got 5 and respondent 4. The petitioner was declared elected. The respondent filed an election petition before the District Judge, East Tanjore, who held that two votes polled for the petitioner were invalid votes as the members who gave the votes were disqualified members and in consequence the respondent was declared elected as President of the Union Board of Tiruthuraipundi. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition. There were 11 members on the Union Board of Tiruthuraipundi of whom two, Govindaswamy Thevar and Varadarajulii Naidu, failed to attend the meetings of the Board held on 20th September 1927 and 30th November 1927. They having failed to attend for three consecutive months the meetings of the Board, they ceased to be members of the Board...
Secy. of State Vs. (Bommadevara) Satyanarayana Varaprasada Rao Bahadur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad520
Odgers, J.1. In the first of these the Secretary of State appeals against the decree of the Additional Sub-Judge of Bezwada in O.S. 22 of 1923 on his file. This was a suit by the Zamindar of South Vallur for a declaration of his title to certain lankas, and for possession with mesne profits for nine years which are estimated at over two lakhs and for future mesne profits till delivery. The plaintiff zamindar's father obtained the South Vallur estate in 1896 and his uncle got the North Vallur estate and the latter successfully established his right to possession of the lank attached to his estate as :. of Secy. of State v. Venkata Narasimha Naidu [1920] 11 M.L.W. 256 .2. From 1894 the Government was in possession of the Kistna river for conservancy purposes and the suit lands were formed in consequence of the operations of Government. On 12th June 1920 the plaintiff zaimindar made his first demand for the possession of the suit lankas and they were delivered to him on 14th July 1921 The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »