Chennai Court February 1931 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.
In Re: U. Gopala Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad688; (1931)60MLJ588
ORDERJackson, J.1. This is a petition from a legal practitioner practising in the Court of the District Judge of South Malabar to set aside the order of the District Judge, dated 21st January, 1931, forbidding him to practise pending the receipt from the High Court of his renewed certificate. The petitioner held a certificate for the year 1930 which was to hold good till December 31, 1930. Under Section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Actat the expiration of such period, the holder of the certificate if he desires to continue to practise, shall, subject to any rules consistent with this Act which may, from time to time, be made by the High Court in this behalf, be entitled to have his certificate renewed by the Judge of the District Court, etc.The only rule framed in this connection is Rule 13 which provides that pending the receipt of the renewed certificate practitioners may continue to practise subject to such precautions as to identification as the District Judge may think fit to pres...
In Re: Maddi Sudarsanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ127
ORDERJackson, J.1. This is a petition by an under-trial prisoner in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate of Guntur seeking to set aside his order that under Section 190(b) he had lawfully taken cognizance of the offence.2. This Court has already had occasion to remark upon the mischievous habit of Trial Courts passing interlocutory orders for which there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. If the accused wishes to raise a point of law by way of defence, he should raise it when called on for his defence, and the Court should deal with it in its judgment.3. This petition, therefore, is misconceived and might be dismissed upon that short ground. However, since the point of law has been raised, it may be answered.4. The petitioner was charge-sheeted by the Police under Section 74(d) of the Madras Salt Act and his plea is that for offence under that Act the Police have no power to put in a charge sheet. This plea depends upon the contention that the Salt Act entirely regulates the ma...
In Re: Konda Satyavatamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ987
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50 fine under Section 117, Indian Penal Code.2. In the trial Court she did not cross-examine the prosecution witness before the charge, and after framing it the Court omitted to give her further opportunity, hence the case has been remanded for a re-trial. She now raises a point that was not taken at the trial. In such circumstances it is doubtful if this Court should interfere in revision. To allow parties in petty magisterial cases to reserve their defence till they can bring it up to the High Court upon revision, would be to turn topsy-turvy the judicial system of this Presidency and apart from other considerations this Court is not so fully abreast of its ordinary work as to afford the time for trying the cases of Second Class Magistrates.3. However the case has been admitted and argued and therefore I will not dismiss it on this short but cogent point. 4. It is argued on behalf of the peti...
C. Samuel Aaron Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad440
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been fined Rs. 1,000 for harbouring in Cannanore certain persons from Travancore and Cochin who were trying to make salt out of sea water. He agrees that they stopped at his vacant hotel, and there is no doubt that he harboured them. But for a conviction under Section 157, I. P.C., it must be shown that they were hired, engaged or employed, and of that there is really no evidence.2. The Police-Inspector P. W. 1 infers that their leader employed them; but one might as well infer that a cricket captain employs his team. It is quite possible that they were all volunteers hired, engaged and employed by no one.3. In that view of the case the conviction cannot stand; the petition is allowed and the fine ordered to be refunded....
M. Muthukumara Pillai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad429; 131Ind.Cas.174a
ORDERJackson, J.1. The report of the Police under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Pro cedure is part of the record as observed in Baidya Nath Singh v. Muspratt 14 C. 141 : 11 Ind. Jur. 226, and there seems no reason to refuse copy. Copy of list of witnesses also should be given. It is ordered accordingly. As regards other documents this Court cannot decide their relevance; and petitioner must abide his remedy, if at all, by appeal....
Manubothula Rama Rao Vs. Manubothula Venkayamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad705
Pandalai, J. 1. These are connected second appeals. The main suit out of which the litigation arose was brought by a Hindu wife against her husband, the appellant in S.A. No. 1432 of 1927, for future maintenance and arrears of maintenance. The first Court dismissed the suit, but the appellate Court awarded the plaintiff arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10 a month and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12 a month so long as the defendant remained in his present service in the railway and thereafter at Rs. 10 a month.Second Appeal No. 1432 of 1927.2. In this appeal the appellant's main point is that there should not have been any decree for maintenance because the respondent (plaintiff) has not established her right to maintenance according to Hindu law. The facts established are that the appellant married the respondent some 21 years before the suit, of which for the first 13 years they lived in harmony together and for the remaining period of eight years the parties lived s...
Krishnaswami Sastrigal Vs. Avayambal Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad204
Curgenven, J.1. The decision of this case is dependent upon the construction to be placed upon a will, Ex. A, executed by one Venkatarama Ayyar in 1902 bequeathing certain properties to his sister Parvati, who died in February 1923, Parvati was the mother of defendant 1 and of Sitarama Sestri, who died in March 1924 and whose widow is the plaintiff. Together the two brothers formed a co-parcenary. Defendant 1 resists the plaintiff's claim to partition of the properties devised by the will firstly on the ground that it created a trust; and secondly, if that contention does not succeed, upon a claim of survivorship, it being argued that the brothers took the property as joint tenants and not as tenants-in-common. The learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur has held in favour of the plaintiff upon both points and defendant 1 appeals.2. We think the lower Court is correct in holding that the provisions of the will did not constitute a trust, and that Parvati took the devised property subjec...
Appu L. Rm. Lakshmanan Chetti (Died) and anr. Vs. the Union Board of D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad520; (1931)60MLJ600
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant, the Union Board of Devakottah, for a declaration that the Board is not entitled to levy profession tax from him for the year 1924-25, that the assessment and the collection thereof are illegal and for the recovery of Rs. 100 paid by him with interest from the date of collection. The defendant amongst other things contended that the suit is not maintainable as no notice as required under Section 225 of the Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920) was given by the plaintiff before the suit. The petitioner's contention with reference to this objection regarding the maintainability of the suit was twofold: (1) that the present suit does not fall within the scope of the section inasmuch as the section contemplates only suits for compensation and damages, and (2) that even if notice is required he has complied with this requirement as he had sent Ex....
Ramnath Chunilal Vs. Grandhi Sattirazu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad465; (1931)61MLJ909
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. Two questions arise in this petition: (1) Before an execution sale is set aside under Order 21, Rule 92 on an application under Order 21, Rule 89, is notice of the application necessary to other decree-holders who have applied for rateable distribution of the purchase-money deposited by the purchaser? (2) If such notice: is necessary, but has been given to some but not to all such decree-holders, can the purchaser whose sale has been set aside enforce repayment of the purchase-money under Rule 93 against these decree-holders who have not received notice but have received their share of the purchase-money?2. The facts are as follows: In execution of the decree in O.S. No. 38 of 1920 in the District Court of East Godavari immovable properties belonging to the debtors were sold on or about 5th January, 1925 and purchased in different lots of which one lot was purchased by the petitioner, a stranger to the decree, for Rs. 4,000 and he deposited the purchase-money in...
P.K. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad439
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 409, I. P.C., for criminal breach of trust.2. He was originally charged under. Section 477-A, I. P.C., but; that count was struck out under Section 227, Criminal P.C. A Court may alter a charge at any time before judgment is pronounced; but of course, if in certain circumstances such alteration has occasioned a failure of justice, the appellate or revisional Court may interfere. It is a mistake to cite cases where the Courts have so interfered as though they establish a proposition in law limiting the discretion conferred upon the trial Court by Section 227, and preventing it absolutely from altering the charge at certain stages of the case. A discretion conferred by statute cannot be whittled away by ruling: In Re: An Attorney [1914] 41 Cal. 446 at p. 457,3. In this case I do not find that any injustice was occasioned by striking out the second count. But the real difficulty is that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »