Chennai Court March 1930 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad798; (1930)59MLJ274
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first question that arises is 'whether the purpose in question is a 'public purpose' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) as altered by the Amending Act (XXXVIII of 1923). So far, only a preliminary notification has been published under that section and the further stage of making the declaration under Section 6 has not yet reached, The plaintiff says that the purpose is not a public one and that is made a ground on which the suit for injunction is made to rest. The notification issued under Section 4, after referring to G.O. No. 3559, dated the 10th of November, 1917, says, that whereas it is intended to acquire the plots belonging to the plaintiff for Manaikats for Panchamas and other coolies, he should intimate to the officer specified, his objection, if any, within a certain stated time. The alleged public purpose stated in this notification is the provision of house-sites for Panchamas (persons of low castes) and other ...
T.S. Venkatarama Iyer and anr. Vs. Kuppuswami Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.240
Vepa Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Judge of Salem setting aside the election of the petitioner before me for the first ward of the Union of Trichengode, in the Salem District. The facts of the case are as follows: The Madras Government dissolved the Trichengode Union under Section 45 of the Local Boards Act and passed an order that another Board should be re-constituted. They appointed an officer immediately to exercise the powers of the Board and he was directed to re-constitute a Union Board by arranging for elections in respect of such members as have got to be elected and they directed also the Taluk Board of Sankari to nominate the members that have got to be nominated, after the elections are over. All this is to be done as soon as possible. Accordingly the Special Officer appointed proceeded with making arrangements for the election of members for the first ward among other elections, In this election the petitioners before me were e...
In Re: Kalia Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ887
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order under sec tion 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code made by the Joint Magistrate of Dindigul requiring the petitioners twelve in num ber to furnish security for keeping the peace for one year. The order was on appeal confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Madura.2. Two objections are taken to the order complained against: (1) that the Joint Magistrate of Dindigul had no jurisdiction to make it, and (2) that the preliminary order under Section 112 in which the proceedings were initiated was defective in that it did not contain the substance of the information received;3. To understand the first objection the facts necessary are that the petitioners and he place where the alleged breach of the peace was apprehended are within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Usilampatti. The proceedings against the petitioners and others under Section 107 were in stituted before that Magistrate, and he on the 29th of...
Achattil Balakrishna Nair and ors. Vs. Vishnu Nambudiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad375
Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition by the plaintiffs in an original suit in the Subordinate Court of Calicut against an order of the Subordinate Judge directing them to pay additional court- tee. The suit was brought by certain minor members of a Malabar tarwad for a declaration that a certain decree obtained against the karnavan and other minor members represented by the karnavan as guardian is not binding on them and for recovery of the tarwad proper ties sold in execution of that decree The decree was a mortgage decree and not only the mortgaged properties, but other properties of the tarwad, were sold in execution of the decree, as it was found that the mortgaged properties were not sufficient to pay off the mortgage The court-fee paid is Rs. 100 for a declaration and ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 414-6-0, which represents ten times the annual assessment of Rs. 41-7-0 on the properties. Then there is a note added that the value for purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 9,485-14-3. T...
Sivaramakrishna Aiyar and anr. Vs. Sankaranarayana Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ524
Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition is filed against an order of the Subordinate judge of Tinnevelly refusing to strike out the names of defendants 4 to 16 who had been previously added as parties to the suit O.S. No. 12 of 1929. The suit was one for partition. The 1st and 2nd defendants are the sons of the 1st plaintiff and the 3rd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 2nd plaintiff is the grandson of the 1st plaintiff. On the 1st defendant's allegations that there had been alienations of the family properties by the 1st plaintiff in favour of defendants 4 to 16 they were previously directed to be made as parties by the Court. Now the plaintiffs apply that they may be expunged. The Subordinate Judge refused the plaintiffs' prayer and hence this revision petition. Before me the learned advocate for the plaintiffs relies on the case Norris v. Beazley (1877) L.R. 2 C.P.D. 80. There Coleridge, C.J., pointed out that defendants to be added must be defendants against whom the plai...
Selvam Chettiar Vs. Y.P.N. Venkatachalam Chettiar Through His Authoris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad10; (1930)59MLJ710
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this Civil Revision Petition may shortly be stated. Certain persons were declared insolvents. They were adjudicated in 1926 on an application filed in 1925. M.P. No. 229 of 1926 was filed for the purpose of setting aside the alienation made by the insolvents in favour of Selvam Chettiar, who is the petitioner before me, under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act. While the petition was pending, the period given to the insolvents for applying for an order of discharge expired and on the expiry of the period the Court passed swo motu an order annulling the adjudication. No notice was given either to the insolvents or to the creditors or to one of them specially authorised to conduct the proceedings in respect of the alienations. The particular creditor who was so authorised then filed an application for review of the order annulling adjudication. This is M.P. No. 447 of 1927 in I.P. No. 1 of 1926. On this petition the Subordinate Judge passed an order modifying the or...
In Re: Veerasami Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad18
Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by 'the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvalur of offences under Sections 457 and 380 and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 50. This conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The facts found against the petitioner are that on 21st January 1929 P.W. 3 took a cow belonging to the petitioner because it trespassed into his property, and took it to the village pound and secured it there and got a receipt for it from the village Munsif, P.W. 1. The next morning the pound was found broken open and the cow was found with the petitioner. His mother said that he had broken into the pound and taken the cow inadvertently and offered to pay the fee. Both the Courts found that he had done so. On his behalf it is argued that the act of the petitioner does not amount to theft but only to an offence under Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act. ' For this, reliance is placed ' upon a dec...
Selvam Chettiar Vs. Y.P.N. Venkatachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.36
Vepa Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this civil revision petition may shortly be stated. Certain persons were declared insolvents. They were adjudicated in 1926 on an application filed in 1925. M.P. No. 229 of. 1926 was filed for the purpose of setting aside the alienation made by the insolvents in favour of Selvam Chetti, who is the petitioner before me, under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act. While the petition was pending, the period given to the insolvents for applying for an order of discharge expired and on the expiry of the period the Court passed suo motu an order annulling the adjudication. No notice was given either to the insolvents or to the creditors or to one of them specially authorised to conduct the proceedings in respect of the alienations. The particular creditor who was so authorised then filed an application for review of the order annulling adjudication. This is M.P. No. 447 of 1927 in I.P. No. 1 of 1926. On this petition the Subordinate Judge passed an order modifying th...
Sankaranarayana Aiyar and anr. Vs. Sankaranarayana Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.235a
Vepa Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition is filed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly refusing to strike out the names of defendants Nos. 4 to 16 who had been previously added as parties to the suit O.S. No. 12 of 1929. The suit was one for partition. The 1st and 2nd defendants are the sons of the 1st plaintiff and the 3rd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 2nd plaintiff is the grandson of the 1st plaintiff. On the 1st defendant's allegations that there had been alienations of the family properties by the 1st plaintiff in favour of defendants Nos. 4 to 16 they were previously directed to be made as parties by the Court. Now the plaintiffs apply that they may be expunged. The Subordinate Judge refused the plaintiffs' prayer and hence this revision petition. Before me the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs relied on the case of Norris v. Beazley (1877) 2 C.P.D. 80 : 46 L.J.P.C. 169 : L.T. (sic). There Coleridge, C.J. pointed out that defendants to be add...
S.P.K.M. Muruga Konar and Co. Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad782; 126Ind.Cas.483
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this revision petition are as follows: Two persons (father and son) applied to the District Court of Ramnad to be adjudicated insolvents. The petition was presented on 15th June 1927. It was transferred to the Sub-Court of Ramnad on 17th June, 1927. It was posted for enquiry on 8th October, 1927. On that (day objections seem to have been taken by some creditors that that Court had no jurisdiction. Then the Court passed the following order:It is said to-day that this Court has no jurisdiction. Petitioners to answer by 27th January 1927.2. On the latter date the petitioners' Vakil accepted the contention that that Court had no jurisdiction and requested the Court to return the petition for presentation to the proper Court. The Court accordingly passed an order returning the petition. The petition was immediately presented on the same day to the District Court of Madura. The original petition contained allegations that the petitioners lived at Palayampatti withi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »