Chennai Court October 1934 Judgments
Mayandi Nadar Vs. Pala Kudumban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad157; (1935)69MLJ101
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The question raised in this case is whether an order passed by a Court under Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code, is appealable. The petitioner was complainant in a case in which four persons were convicted of breaking into a shop at night and committing theft, under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. The first and second accused were boys aged 12 and 15 respectively and the Stationary Sub-Magistrate who convicted them released them after due admonition under Sub-section 1-A, of Section 562. The third accused was of mature years and received a fine of Rs. 25. The fourth and last accused was a youth aged 17, and he was released under Section 562(1) on entering into a bond with one surety. The accused two to four preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge who disposed of it has, we think, rightly held that the release after admonition of the second accused was illegal because Sub-section 1-A does not apply to a case of house-breaking and further that t...
Tag this Judgment!N.A.M. Appasami Pillai Vs. Morangam Muthirian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad371; 157Ind.Cas.259; (1935)68MLJ73
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The questions that arise are, first, whether the payment relied upon by the plaintiff has the effect of preventing the bar of limitation; secondly, in the alternative, whether there is such an acknowledgment of liability as is sufficient for that purpose.2. The plaintiff, alleging that a certain sum was due to him, has filed the suit. The defendant pleads that there was a mediation at which an amount smaller than the sum claimed, was fixed as due by him and that he paid the sum so fixed in full discharge of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff contends that his suit is not barred as it has been brought within 3 years from the date of the payment. The defendant wrote a letter mentioning the fact of the payment and the plaintiff's further contention is, that it contains a sufficient acknowledgment. The lower Court has found on the issues of fact, that the defendant has failed to prove that there was a mediation and that on the date of the payment there was still a ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T. Sreeramamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ211
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case was charged by the police with an offence punishable under Section 290, Indian Penal Code. The charge against him was that he committed a public nuisance by arranging a marriage procession with music and by letting off fire-works and thereby disturbing the sleep of the people in the vicinity of Frenchpeta which is part of French territory. The accused objected to the Magistrate's trying the case on the ground that he had no jurisdiction as the alleged offence was committed in Frenchpeta which is part of French territory, and not within British India. The Magistrate overruled the objection on the ground that though the scene of offence is in Frenchpeta the consequence of the offence which formed part and parcel of the offence had ensued in British territory. Apparently the learned Magistrate thought that this was a case within the purview of Section 179, Criminal Procedure Code, which says that when a person is accused of the commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Kondho Rayagaru Vs. the District Collector of Ganjam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad264; 157Ind.Cas.503; (1935)68MLJ232
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This case raises the question of the validity of a surcharge certificate granted in pursuance of the rules made under the Madras Local Boards Act (Madras Act XIV of 1920). Section 120 of that Act provides for the appointment of auditors of the accounts of Local funds. Section 199 enacts that the Local Government may make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act not inconsistent therewith and goes on ' to say, that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, they shall have power to make rules 'as to the powers of auditors to disallow and surcharge items and as to the recovery of sums disallowed or surcharged'. (Clause O.) Under the authority conferred by this section, the Local Government made certain rules, known shortly as surcharge Rules with which we are now concerned. Rule 3 says that the auditors appointed under Section 120 of the Act shall report to the Board (to quote only the relevant part) any loss of mo...
Tag this Judgment!T. Sreeramamurthy Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad189; 154Ind.Cas.146
ORDERPandarang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case was charged by the Police with an. offence punishable under Section 290, Indian Penal Code. The charge against him was that he committed a public nuisance by arranging a marriage procession with music and by letting off lire works and thereby disturbing the sleep of the people in the vicinity of Frenchpeta which is part of French territory. The accused objected to the Magistrate's trying the case on the ground that he had no jurisdiction as the alleged offence was committed in Frenchpeta which is part of French territory, and not within British India. The Magistrate overruled the objection on the ground that though the scene of offence is in Frenchpeta the consequence of the offence which formed part and parcel of the offence had ensued in British territory. Apparently the learned Magistrate thought that this was a case within the purview of Section 179, Criminal Procedure Code, which says that when a person is accused of the commiss...
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Srilasri Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi, Adhinakarthar, Thir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.589; (1935)68MLJ218
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is presented against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tanjore upon issue No. 1 in the suit which was:Is the Thiruvaduthurai mutt a public, charitable or religious institution within the meaning of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, and is the suit-sustainable under the said section?2. The Additional Subordinate Judge gave his decision upon this issue on the 22nd December, 1932, finding that the mutt was a public and charitable religious institution within the meaning of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code and that the suit was therefore sustainable under that section. The objection taken to this decision is that the Judge has failed to distinguish between an endowment for the general support of the mutt and a specific endowment for a specific purpose and that the former purpose is not one which makes the mutt a charitable or religious institution within the meaning of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code. A p...
Tag this Judgment!Guduru Venkataratnam and 12 ors. Vs. Godavarthi Nagayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad373; 158Ind.Cas.530; (1935)68MLJ423
1. These are two appeals against the orders passed by the District Court, Ellore, in O. Ps. Nos. 82 and 83 of 1927.2. The applications related to two temples and were made under Section 44 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act II of 1927.3. The applicants claimed to be the trustees under a scheme of the Court and they alleged that the respondents (who are the appellants here) held certain inams charged with the performance of dancing girl services in the temples, that the respondents had failed to perform the services and that therefore the applicants had had to get the services performed by others, and they sought an order of the Court under Section 44 to recover the amount from the respondents (appellants).4. The defence was that the applications were not maintainable as the Inams were not charged with the service, and that as a matter of fact the respondents had rendered the services and had been paid separately by the trustees.5. Both applications were heard together.6. O.P. No. 83...
Tag this Judgment!Nayinsikh Jayanarayana Vs. Seerapu Polayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad383; (1935)68MLJ392
1. This appeal is from an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cocanada who held that an execution petition filed on 15th July, 1927, was barred by limitation. It was contended before him that a previous execution petition, namely, E.P. No. 78 of 1925 filed.on 26th October, 1925, which is Ex. E, was an application in accordance with law made to the proper Court for execution and saved limitation and hence the execution petition in question was not barred by limitation by Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act. The facts of the case quite shortly are that the original decree-holder was one Ramanarayana Daga. He filed an insolvency petition in Calcutta and was adjudged insolvent, his properties therefore vesting in the Official Assignee of Calcutta. The Official Assignee of Calcutta sold all the debts due to the original decree-holder from others, and the present appellant, the execution-petitioner in the lower Court, purchased all those debts. There is an assignment deed Ex. G by ...
Tag this Judgment!Lasri Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi Adhinakarthar Thiruvaduthrai Mutt Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad282
Beasley, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is presented against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tanjora upon issue 1 in the suit which was:Is the Tiruvaduthurai Mutt a public, charitable or religious institution within the meaning ot Section 92, Civil P.C., and is the suit sustainable under the said section2. The Additional Subordinate Judge gave his decision upon this issue on 22nd December 1932, finding that the mutt was a public and charitable religious institution Within the meaning of Section 92, Civil P. C. and that the suit was therefore sustainable under that section. The objection to this decision is that the Judge has failed to distinguish between an endowment for the general support of the mutt and a specific endowment for a specific purpose and that the former purpose is not one which makes the mutt a charitable or religious institution within the meaning of Section 92, Civil P. C. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision petition ...
Tag this Judgment!The Crown Prosecutor Vs. Muthusawmy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad198; (1935)68MLJ176
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is an application by the Crown Prosecutor, Madras to enhance the sentence passed on the accused in C.C. No. 246 of 1934 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras. The accused in the case was found guilty of having stolen some cash and clothes worth in all about 12 rupees belonging to P.W. 1 in the case while the latter was bathing at a bathing ghat in Madras. The Magistrate found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rupees thirty and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months, and directed Rs. 12 out of the fine if collected to be paid as compensation to P.W. 1. It would appear that the fine has not been paid. The conviction and sentence are dated the 21st February, 1934 and it is clear that the accused in the case must have undergone the entire sentence of imprisonment.2. The only ground on which it is contended before me that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »