Chennai Court July 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.
N. Shanmukham Chetty Vs. M. Govinda Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad92
Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for an account and other reliefs instituted by certain trustees against their co-trustees on the Original Side of this Court. In Royapuram, Madras, is an Indian Hindu temple known as Subrahmanyaswami Koil, which belongs, according to the pleadings, to the Pattinava sect of the Hindus. The plaintiffs' case is that in 1922 a meeting of the members of the community was held at Royapuram at which the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 were elected trustees for the purpose of collecting subscriptions for the improvement of the temple, for the performance of the rites therein and for the conduct of festivals and other cognate matters, with power to spend the collections on these objects. It is common ground that this meeting was held and that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 were elected trustees for these purposes. The contesting defendants, defendants 2 and 3, however, aver that the duties of the trustees were not confined to the temple and ...
In Re: Dastagir Alias Gulam Dastagir and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad822; (1937)2MLJ402
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioners in this case are charged with murder and the preliminary enquiry into the alleged offence is in progress before the learned third Presidency Magistrate. P.W. 1 has been examined in chief, and one question has been put to him in cross-examination. At that stage petitioner's pleader applied under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a copy of P.W. l's statement to the Police. The learned Magistrate refused to grant it. Hence this application in revision. It is a little difficult to understand the precise reason for the refusal. The Magistrate begins by pointing out that the one answer given by the witness in cross-examination does not establish any contradiction but if he means by that the accused's pleader must either establish an actual instance of contradiction or lay a foundation for the belief that such a contradiction will be found if the police record is referred to, he is asking the accused's pleader to perform an impossible task. (Emp...
In Re: Dastagir and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.962
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioners in this case are charged with murder and the preliminary enquiry into the alleged offence is in progress before the learned Third Presidency Magistrate. Prosecution Witness No. 1 has been examined-in-chief, and one question has been put to him in cross-examination. At that stage petitioners' Pleader applied under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, for a copy of P.W. No. 1's statement to the Police. The learned Magistrate reduced to grant it. Hence this application in revision. It is little difficult to understand the precise reason for the refusal. The Magistrate begins by pointing out that the one answer given by the witness in cross-examination does not establish any contradiction, but if he means by that the accused's Pleader must either establish an actual instance of contradiction or lay a foundation for the belief that such a contradiction will be found if the Police record is referred to, he is asking the accused's Pleader to perform an impossi...
C.V.C.T.V. Venkatachalam Chettiar Vs. V.Vr.N.Ar. Nagappa Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad189; (1937)2MLJ700
ORDER1. This matter relates to the election of a member to the District Board of Ramnad for the Pallathur Circle. The election was first fixed for the 23rd November, 1936. On that date the poll at one of the fourteen polling booths was stopped by the polling officer under Rule 24-B (1) of the Election Rules. The Election Authority on being notified of this, referred the matter for the orders of Government. Government passed orders on the 3rd December for the holding of a fresh poll at all the polling booths, stating it to be their conclusion after enquiry that there had been systematic interruption of the polling at all the polling stations. The date for this fresh poll was fixed by the Election Authority as 14th December. On that day polling proceeded, normally, and in due course Mr. Venkatachalam Chettiar (the present petitioner) was declared elected. The defeated candidate Mr. Nagappa Chettiar (the present respondent) thereupon filed a petition before the Election Commissioner (prin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›