Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad824; (1936)71MLJ305
ORDERBurn, J.1. There was nothing lo prevent the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate from drawing up a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure on the date on which he decided that the case was one properly falling under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not understand what he means when he says it was 'impossible'. The importance of this is that the question of possession has to be decided with reference to the date of the preliminary order (see Section 145(4) Criminal Procedure Code) and if there is no preliminary order the one question which the Magistrate has to decide cannot be decided. The learned Magistrate has referred to the date of the 'cause of action' without explaining even what that date was. The learned Advocate for the Respondent contends that this was the date in September 1935 when the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate decided to 'convert' the case into one under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. This may be correct but it is fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad905; 165Ind.Cas.180; (1936)71MLJ400
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated 8th May, 1935, in O.S. No. 768 of 1934, a suit for an injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents from beating tom-tom and from producing loud music in his house No. 29, Ramanuja Aiyar Street, Old Washermanpet. The plaintiff is the owner and resident of the adjoining house No. 30. Both the houses are situated in a residential locality and the defendant's house was also used purely for residential purposes till 1932 when the down stair portion of it was set apart by the defendant for what he considered to be a charitable purpose, namely, to allow anybody who wanted to use it temporarily for performing marriage ceremonies, pujas, etc., free of rent. The convenience of getting a building for such purposes was apparently appreciated by many people after this 'charity' was established, for the defendant's own account shows that in 1933 it was used for these pujas and ceremonies for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad94; 173Ind.Cas.452
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the City Civil Judge, Madras,, returning the plaint in O.S. No. 566 of 1932 for presentation to the proper Court The plaintiff sued for four reliefs. Two of them related to the copyright claimed by him in a certain book known as 'Gopal New Tamil Reader No. 1,' and so far as these reliefs were concerned the learned City Civil Judge was of opinion that he had no jurisdiction to grant these reliefs, and his view is obviously correct. 'Under Section 13, Copyright Act, every suit or other civil proceeding regarding infringement of copyright shall be instituted and tried in the High Court or the Court of the District Judge. The City Civil Court does-not come under either of these categories-and it is obvious that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Section 3, City Civil Court Act, which constituted the Court does not avoid the effect of a specific provision like Section 13, Copyright Act. Section 3, City Civil Court Act, gives gene...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad180
Varadachariar, J.1. As the introductory facts have been set out in our judgment in A.S. No. 165 of 1930, it is sufficient to state here that this appeal arises out of disputes between the Government and the zamindar of Saptur in respect of silt clearance near and over the Vannapparai anicut and of the extent of the Government's right to take water through the Sivaneri channel, which branches off from the Periyar in front of this anicut. At this point, the river has a bend and flows more or less south to north. The anicut has been constructed south-west to north-east and the channel lakes off from the right or eastern bank of the river. In the plaint, the zamindar who is a lower riparian owner complained of two matters: (i) that the Government through its servants and ryots of the Ayan villages had widened and deepened the Sivaneri channel from time to time thus obstructing more water from the river, and (ii) that the river has silted up on both Hides above the anicut and reeds, etc., h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 164Ind.Cas.689
ORDERBurn, J.1. There was nothing to prevent the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate from drawing up a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure on the date on which he decided that the case was one properly falling under s, 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not Understand what he means when he says it was 'impossible'. The importance of this is that the question of possession has to be decided with reference to the date of the preliminary order (See Section 145 (4) Criminal Procedure Code and if there is no preliminary order the one question which the Magistrate has to decide cannot be decided. The learned Magistrate has referred to the date of the 'cause of action' without explaining even what that date was. The learned Advocate for the respondent contends that this was the date in September 1935 when the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate decided to 'convert' the case into one under s, 145, Criminal Procedure Code. This may be correct, but it is far from s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1936)71MLJ357
ORDER1. These criminal revision cases arise out of convictions under Section 18(1) of the Indian (Press Emergency Powers) Acts, 1931. Criminal revision cases Nos. 926, 929 and 930 of 1935 are in respect of the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Guntur dismissing the appeals against the order of conviction by Mr. Strathie, District Magistrate of Guntur : and Criminal revision cases Nos. 927 and 928 of 1935 relate to convictions by the third Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.2. The petitioners were convicted of the offence of having distributed unauthorised news-sheets in Guntur and Madras respectively and were sentenced on conviction to simple imprisonment for six months. The points arising in these cases have been dealt with in one common argument and can be disposed of in one judgment.3. The petitioners in all these cases were members of a body known as the Labour Protection League; and as regards the the Guntur prosecution, one of them is the President, another the Secretary and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad835; 165Ind.Cas.860
ORDER1. These criminal revision cases arise out of conviction under Section 18 (1), Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 926, 929 and 930 of 1935 are in respect of the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Guntur dismissing the appeals against the order of conviction by Mr. Strathe, District Magistrate of Guntur; and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 927 and 928 of 1935 relate to convictions by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. The petitioners were convicted of the offence of having distributed unauthorized news-sheets in Guntur and Madras respectively and were sentenced on conviction to simple imprisonment for six months. The points arising in these cases have been dealt with in one common argument and can be disposed of in one judgment.2. The petitioners in all these cases were members of a body known as the Labour Protection League; and as regards the Guntur prosecution, one of them is the president, another the secretary and the third the jo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad148
King, J.1. This appeal is concerned with 3 acres 53 cents of land in Varahur with Survey No, 231/3, which in 1906 was mortgaged by one Ayyasami Padayachi to one Muthusami Udayan for Rs. 100. In 1910 Ayyasami Padayachi and his wife Kamakshi further mortgaged a house for Rs. 250 to the same Muthusami Udayan. In 1921, Ayyasami Padayachi being then dead, his widow sold the equity of redemption in this land by two contradictory sale deeds to Muthusami Udayan's son Pichaipillai Udayan, the plaintiffs, and to defendant 1. The dispute which inevitably arose between the rival vendees was referred to arbitration and an oral award was pronounced in November 1921 by which defendant 1 was to keep the property and pay Rs. 750 to the plaintiff in discharge of his two mortgages. If default was made in payment plaintiff was to have the right to bring this property to sale. No payment was made, disputes broke out again, and in 1923 the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur, took action Under Section 145, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad495
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. (14th February 1934.) The plaintiffs are Indian Christians and they attacked in this suit the decree obtained against them in O.S. No. 243 of 1923 on the file of the Tuticorin Munsif's Court (same as O.S. No. 91 of 1924 on the file of the Srivikuntam Munsif's Court) by defendants 1 to 3. The decree is attacked on two grounds: First, that it was obtained by the fraud of defendants 1 to 4 and secondly, that there was gross negligence on the part of defendant 7, the plaintiff's mother. Although the relief claimed is a declaration that the decree in the former action is not binding, the suit may be treated as one brought to set aside that decree. There is also a prayer for an injunction to restrain defendants 1 to 4 from executing that decree.2. The learned District Munsif rightly points out that several relevant documents have not been filed, and this has been responsible for a great deal of inconvenionce that has arisen. The facts, so far as I have been able t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad697
ORDERStodart, J.1. I do not think this is a case in which the High Court should interfere. Petitioners have been amply compensated in costs. The withdrawal of the suit by the partners who have not been registered as a firm could be no bar to a suit filed on the same cause of action by the same per-sons when and if they get themselves registered as a firm under the Partnership Act. For the latter suit would be technically by a different plaintiff. I do not see any reason why the unqualified dismissal of a suit filed by a number of persons be-cause they are a firm and are not registered under the Partnership Act, should be any bar to the institution of a suit on the [same cause of action by the same persons when they have got themselves registered. The defect which existed in the case, namely the non-registration of the firm, and which the learned District Munsif held to be a mere formal defect not preventing him from giving permission to file a fresh suit-a fresh suit I presume to be fi...
Tag this Judgment!