Chennai Court November 1937 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.
Ambalathilakath Kuttoossa and anr. Vs. Mundayatan Korothveettil Kunham ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad380; (1938)1MLJ142
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of a learned Judge of this Court refusing an application for security for costs in a pending first appeal. The learned Judge bases his order on three grounds:(1) that there was delay in applying;(2) that the application was not bona fide; and(3) that the effect of granting the application would be to stifle the appeal. We regret we are unable to uphold the learned Judge's view.2. We should be reluctant to interfere in a matter of this sort, but for the fact, that the case raises certain questions of principle, in regard to the exercise of the Court's discretion, when security is demanded from an appellant. The proposition is well established that the appellant's poverty by itself would not be sufficient to warrant his being required to furnish security. That has not been seriously disputed here, but surely that does not mean that the appellant can rely upon his own poverty, as being an important or decisive factor, an...
In Re: P. Ramaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ810
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the learned Joint Magistrate of Negapatam, framing a charge of defamation against the petitioner. It seems to me that on the materials placed before him he ought not to have framed the charge. On 3rd May, 1937, one Panchapakesa Aiyar preferred a complaint to the Joint Magistrate alleging that the petitioner is a man of dangerous character and that it is the duty of the police and the magistracy to protect the law-abiding citizens to lead their lives peacefully and to afford them protection in the, discharge of their lawful duties and rights. In support of the allegations which he made in this petition, he referred to six gentlemen who according to him were in hourly peril of their, person and expecting assaults from the petitioner. One of the persons referred to therein is Swaminatha Mudaliar the respondent herein. There can be no question that when he mentioned the names of these gentlemen, it was. his evident ...
Chembrolu Ramamurthy Vs. Chembrolu Bhimasankararao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad433; (1938)1MLJ296
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry by the appellant for the partition of the estate of his uncle Subbarayudu. He claimed that he and the first and second respondents (the first and second defendants) were entitled to the estate as reversioners. There were 65 defendants, the other defendants being sued as alienees.2. Subbarayudu died about 60 years ago leaving a widow, Suramma, but no children. Suramma died on the 3rd July, 1928. The judgment of the lower Court contains a geneological tree showing the relationship between the appellant, the first and second respondents and Subbarayudu, and it will be convenient to reproduce it here.Chembrolu Venkatabrahmam|________________________________________________| |Subbarayadu Ramaswami| |Subbarayaduj |(Wife) Suramma. ____________________| |Annappa Sastri Sitaramayya| || || Ramamurthy | (Plaintiff).___________|_____| |Bhimasankara Rao Venkataratnam(1st Def...
In Re: Kalli Koravan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad464; (1938)1MLJ234
Horwill, J.1. That the offence complained of was committed there can be no doubt, but the only evidence connecting the accused with the offence was that of P.W. 3, who is undoubtedly an habitual receiver of stolen property.2. The learned Sessions Judge in charging the Jury said:Gentlemen, the evidence of P.W. 3, which alone connects the accused with the crime, appears to show that she is not as innocent as she pretends. It is by no means unlikely that she is the receiver of the stolen property.It is for you to see whether her evidence can be believed when she says that she did not know that M. Os. Nos. 2 to 5 were stolen when the accused pledged them with her. If she had received stolen property knowing them to be stolen, she would certainly not own it here. But however, it is for you to see how far you should discredit her evidence regarding the fact that she received the properties from the accused.If you, Gentlemen, do not believe her evidence, then there is nothing to connect the a...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Marimuthu Gounden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad460; 173Ind.Cas.448; (1938)1MLJ238
Horwill, J.1. It appears that the Excise authorities had reason to suspect that illicit distillation was going on in a certain area and posted a number of Sub-Inspectors and peons in various parts of a forest at the early hours of the morning in the hope of detecting illicit distillation. At about 6 A.M. P.Ws. 1 and 2 detected the accused preparing wash for the purpose of distilling arrack. They then took the accused to the Excise Circle Inspector who charged them with having been in possession of 19 gallons of fermented wash fit for illicit distillation and asked them what they had to say. Each admitted the offence saying that they prepared the wash for distilling arrack for their private use at Deepavali. The Magistrate who tried these accused acquitted them on the ground that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was not supported by that of such disinterested witnesses who could have been procured and also because he thought that although the accused had made a confession, yet it was not s...
Cheedalla Polamma Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad718; (1938)1MLJ781
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Nellore dated 18th February, 1936, allowing an application by the Official Receiver to set aside a sale held in execution of a decree by the Additional District Munsiff of Nellore, on the 23rd January, 1933. The relevant facts are as follows. The properties that were sold in Court auction belonged to the insolvents against whom a creditor's petition to adjudicate them as insolvents was admitted in October, 1932. Notice of the petition was published in the Gazette on 14th January, 1933. The sale was actually held, as observed already, on the 23rd January, 1933, that is to say, after the publication in the Gazette of the petition. The properties were brought to sale by another creditor of the insolvents, the appellant Polamma, who was represented throughout by her agent Chidambaram Chetti. There is evidence in the case which has been accepted by the Court below to show that before the sale there was an attempt t...
Kannayalal Vs. S. Subbaraya Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad413; (1938)1MLJ281
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal and the petitioner in the Revision Petition are one and the same, the appeal and Revision Petition being alternative remedies pursued for the same purpose, namely, of getting the order of the District Judge of Vellore in C.M.A. No. 65 of 1934 set aside. That was an appeal from an order passed in an application by the creditor of an insolvent for the assignment of a policy of insurance taken out by the insolvent in his favour. The second respondent in the petition was the Life Insurance Company and the third respondent was the wife of the insolvent debtor. The only question that had to be decided by the Courts below was whether the life policy in question, Ex. I, contains a trust for the benefit of the wife, the third respondent. The verba ipsissima 'the policy is for the benefit of the wife' are not to be found in the policy, but it is stated therein that the amount clue on the policy should be paid to the assured, that is, to the ...
Nuserwanji Cursedji Bhesania and Co. Vs. Mahamayi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad585
Leach, C.J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul to recover a sum of Rs. 77,770 with interest from K.S.N. Periathambi Nadar, who was sued as the principal debtor, and from U.P.A. Pachayappa Nadar, who was sued as his surety. They were defendants 1 and 6 respectively, and as it will be necessary in the course of this judgment to mention them frequently, it will be convenient to refer to them here as defendants 1 and 6. Defendant 6 died during the pendency of the suit and the respondents are his legal representatives. The appellants are a firm of produce merchants with their head office at Bombay. In 1915, they opened a branch at Bodinaickanoor in the Madura District, where they carried on business in coffee and cardamoms under the style of M.N. Bodiwala and Company. In the course of their business at Bodinaickanoor, they became associated with defendant 1, who, they say, pressed them to open a branch at Pattiveeranpat...
Thathachariar and ors. Vs. Srinivasaraghava Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad334; (1938)1MLJ174
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Venkataramana Rao, J., in S.A. No. 469 of 1932 dated 14th April, 1936. The second appeal arose out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff and his family were entitled to the first honours, namely, Thirtham, Thulasi and Sri Satari on the occasion of the Pavitrotsavam festival in the temple of Sri Sarangapaniswami at Kumbakonam. The plaintiff's case was that he and his family had been performing the said festival from time immemorial and that immediately after the prayers or worship are over an offering of food prepared at the plaintiff's expense is offered to the deity and after Karpoora harathi the plaintiff has to be given Thirtham, Thulasi, etc., and Sri Satari has to be placed over his head with parivattam, that is, a piece of silk cloth. The claim was thus, as stated by Venkataramana Rao, J., 'rested on long standing custom and practice', and related entirely to 'first honours' in connection with the festival which t...
In Re: Shanmugham Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad482; (1938)1MLJ178
ORDERHorwill, J.1. It has been found by the Joint Magistrate of Sivakasi and his finding has been confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of Ramnad, that the petitioners are by habit house-breakers and thieves; and so they were called upon under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, to show cause why they should not execute bonds with sureties for good behaviour. Not having shown cause, they have been called upon to execute bonds and they have done so.2. Before discussing the actual evidence against these petitioners, I think it is necessary, as this point is frequently raised, to say a word or two with regard to the scope of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. It is of course true that Section 110 is intended to deal with persons who cannot readily be brought under the ordinary law and who for special reasons could not be convicted under the Penal Code in respect of the offences said to have been committed by them. It is argued that Section 110 is intended only to deal with gangs ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »