Chennai Court December 1930 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.
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Vadlamudi Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad484; 131Ind.Cas.844; (1931)61MLJ842
1. The three respondents who were accused Nos. 8, 10 and 9 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Bandar Division at Masulipatarr, were convicted together with Accused Nos. 1 to 7 for offences under Sections 143 and 145 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 22 of the Police Act, V of 186'. They were sentenced under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, to one month's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 145 to rigorous imprisonment for six weeks each, the sentences to run concurrently; and they were called upon to execute bonds for Rs. 200 each with two sureties each for similar amounts to keep the peace for one year after the expiry of the sentences. As the accused had been sentenced under Sections 143 and 145, Indian Penal Code, no sentencejwas passed with regard to the charge under Section 32 of the Police Act. The accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 appealed to the Sessions Judge of Kistna Division who set aside their convictions under Sections 113 and 145 of the Indian Penal ...
S. Sendiappa Nadar and ors. Vs. the President, District Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad419; (1931)60MLJ495
ORDERJackson, J.1. Criminal Revision Case No. 445 of 1930.--The petitioner seeks to revise an order passed in the course of a summons case by the Sub-Magistrate, Periyakulam. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for writing orders in the course of a case, and the Sub-Magistrate would have been well advised to have deferred all writing till after the conclusion of the trial. If the petitioner felt aggrieved, his . proper course was to have moved in revision against the issue of summons. But speaking for myself, I should not have thought it advisable for this Court to intervene at that stage. Where a remedy ultimately lies by way of appeal, it is unnecessary for the High Court to move in revision. And if it is argued that the Lower Court is clearly acting without jurisdiction, then the short answer is that the party need not concern himself at all about the trial, but can simply appeal if the matter comes to judgment, if, on the other hand, it is not so clear, and it i...
(Valluru) Basavayya and anr. Vs. Govindaraju Veerabhadra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad679
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiffs 1 and 2, who are father and son, are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by them for a declaration that the decree obtained by defendants 1 to 4 against plaintiff 1 in O.S. 44 of 1921 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coca-nada, is not binding on them.2. The facts are these: One Sitapathi Rao was a divided brother of one Krishna-murti. After his death plaintiff 1 purchased items 7 and 8 of the properties involved in the suit, O.S. No. 44 of 1921. These properties belonged to Sitapathi Rao. The sale deed, Ex. A, was executed by his widow Venkayamma and her adopted son represented by her, and by Mahalakshmamma and her minor son, who are defendants 1 to 4 in the present suit, represented by her. After Venkayamma's death these defendants as plaintiffs filed O.S. 44 of 1921 to recover the properties of Sitapathi Rao as reversioners to his estate. By that time defendants 1 and 2 had become majors and defendants 3 and 4 (plaintiffs 3 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›