Chennai Court September 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.
In Re: Unna Muhammad Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad74; 173Ind.Cas.223
ORDERNewsam, J.Gambling is not a criminal offence in itself. Gambling in a public 'street, place or thoroughfare is an offence. The facts are that petitioner (appellant 4 and accused 5 in the case) and others were caught playing cards for money in a tanked at 3.30 P.M. I do not think that this amounts to an offence. I agree with the conclusion in Emperor v. Hussain Noor Mahomed (1906) 30 Bom 348 that it is not an offence to gamble in every public place. The word 'place' in Section 12, Madras Gaming Act, means from its context a place akin to a street or thoroughfare, used regularly and necessarily by people going from one place to another. The real offence dealt with in Section 12 is obstruction or annoyance to wayfarers and pedestrians. I allow this petition and set aside the conviction and sentence on petitioner....
Thavasikannu thevar and ors. Vs. S. Sankaralingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad217
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. This is a civil revision petition Under Section 115, Civil P.C. and I am asked to set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge declaring the petitioners' ex parte. The learned Judge has given reasons for not acceding to the request of the petitioners to restore the case. On two previous occasions, the suit was adjourned for their convenience and they did not appear. The present is the third occasion. The learned Judge apparently thought that there was no justification for giving them another indulgence. The affidavit filed in support of their application shows that they could have been more diligent in the step they took to be present in Court at the proper time. If they missed the train as they say they did, they could have sent a telegram from the place apprising the Court of their inability to be present and might have followed in a car. They say that they did follow in a car and that they reached the place at a later hour. If they had sent a telegra...
In Re: Ramakkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad172; 173Ind.Cas.317; (1937)2MLJ734
ORDER1. This is a revision petition asking the Court to quash a charge framed under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, against three persons.2. The facts appear to be as follows:3. P.W. 2 while waiting to deposit money into the bank at Gopichettipalayam lost from his shirt pocket four currency notes of the value of one hundred rupees each.4. He noticed this loss at about 10 A.M.5. The four notes were picked up in the street by P.W. 6--a child of six. P.W. 6 gave a young friend of his (P.W. 7) one note, but P.W. 7 was insisting on getting two. Their wrangles attracted the attention of a passing barber (P.W. 4) who snatched all four notes from them. The children clamoured for the return of the notes and held his coat, but the barber took them with him to hand them and the money to P.W. 6's father whom he knew. On the way he met P.W. 6's grandmother (accused 1). She asked where he was taking P.W. 6 and on being told the facts, she claimed a prior right to these notes. So) P.W. 4 handed over ...
In Re: Arikatla Nagireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad112; 173Ind.Cas.213
ORDERNewsam, J.The order of the District Magistrate Under Section 436, Criminal P.C. is not correct in form or in substance. He cannot compel a Magistrate to take cognizance of a complaint. He has said that the complaint 'should be restored to file', but as it was dismissed Under Section 203 it never was on the file. The proper order to have made was to direct further inquiry into the case, which does not necessarily imply that process should be issued to the person against whom the complaint was directed. All that it is necessary to say is that the Magistrate before whom the case now is should hold an inquiry Under Section 202, Criminal P.C. and proceed according to law, with unfettered discretion to dismiss the complaint once more if he thinks it proper to do so. The criminal revision petition is allowed....
S. Venkatasubramania Sarma Vs. United Planters' Association of South I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad234
Burn, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore passed on E.P.R. No. 349 of 1935 in O.S. No. 261 of 1934. O.S. No. 261 was a suit filed by the United Planters' Association of South India against a minor, Section Venkatasubramania Sarma, by his guardian. The suit was based upon the allegation that the father of the minor, Sundareswara Sarma, who had been employed as an accountant by the Association had misappropriated Rs. 7500 of the Association's money. A decree was passed in favour of the Association against the separate assets of the deceased Sundareswara Sarma if any in the hands of the minor defendant. The Association got an attachment before judgment of three sums: viz, (1) a sum of about Rs. 5000 representing the contributions of Sundareswara Sarma to the Association's Provident Fund; (2) an insurance policy of Rs. 1000 and (3) an insurance policy of Rs. 4000. Both the policies are issued by the Oriental Government Secur...
Mariyappa Nadar and anr. Vs. Ramanuja Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad465
Horwill, J.1. On 1st October 1914, defendant 1, on behalf of himself and his sons, mortgaged four items of suit property to defendant 8, who represents also defendants 6 and 7. Towards the end of August 1916, defendant 1 purchased the remaining six items of the suit property; but as ha had not sufficient money to pay for the whole of the consideration, he mortgaged all the ten properties in favour of the plaintiff on 30th August 1916. In 1921 defendants 6 and 7 brought O.S. No. 28 of 1921, a suit for sale, with regard to the four items of property mortgaged to them and the property was bought in auction by defendants 6 and 7. The plaintiff was not imp leaded in that suit. As the property did not fetch an amount sufficient to meet the whole of the mortgage debt, defendants 6 and 7 obtained a personal decree against defendant 1 for the remainder; and in execution of that decree, they attached on 31st May 1926 the remaining six items of the suit property. On 1st October 1926, while the at...
Malayalam Plantations Ltd. Vs. Nagasuri Veeraraghaviah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad304
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris, Ootacamund giving a decree in favour of the plaintiff in terms of Para. 22(a) of the plaint. The property belonged to one Percy Guard.2. On 1st March 1901 he granted the mining rights in the suit property to one Walter Morres. Subsequently he sold all the mining rights to the plaintiff by a deed dated 1st June 1914. By a release deed of even date Walter Morres surrendered all the mining rights in favour of the plaintiff. The document executed by Percy Guard in favour of the plaintiff is Ex. A in the case. Percy Guard died somewhere about 1916 and letters of administration to his estate were granted to Walter Morres in 1917. As administrator he sold the property to the East India Tea and Produce Corporation Ltd. which has since gone into liquidation and the rights of the East India Tea and Produce Corporation Ltd. are now vested in the present defendants they having purchased the ...
M.M.S.T. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Shanmugam Pillai, Head Clerk of A.S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.14; (1937)2MLJ878
ORDERNewsam, J.1. This is a petition by a person accused of cheating praying this Court to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that the complaint discloses no offence.2. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court to pass any orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court is not questioned and indeed has been clearly expressed in Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since prevention is always better than cure, the obligation to prevent specious and spiteful criminal prosecutions for actions which, though strictly dishonourable, yet do not amount to crimes is one that must never be shirked. In the world of business things are often done which, are betrayals of confidence and deceptions which arouse moral indignation but are nevertheless civil wrongs which can be righted by Civil Courts and are not crimes which can be punished by a Criminal Court. Not every immoral act is criminal and it is an abuse of the process of a Court to attempt to create new crimes...
K. Ramasawmi Ayyangar Vs. K.V. Panduranga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.943
ORDERNewsam, J.1. This is an application asking the Court to revise the order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate made in the following circumstances.2. In a suit on a pro-note for Rs. 200 plaintiff applied for attachment before judgment of the defendant's movable property. The Curt ordered notice to defendant. The notice was, returned with an endorsement that it had been personally served on defendant. As defendant did not appear, attachment was ordered. As soon as the bailiff went to effect attachment, the defendant paid up.3. The defendant complains that his signature on the reverse of the notice was forged by the clerk of the plain tiffs Advocate and the forged document was used to stifle his objections to attachment before judgment.4. The defendant, after about a month's delay moved the Court to prosecute the clerk of plaintiff's Vakil and also filed a private complaint against him and also applied under Section 95, Civil Procedure Code, for compensation against plaintiff for atta...
In Re: Mallimoggala Venkataramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad130; 173Ind.Cas.26; (1937)2MLJ862
ORDERNewsam, J.1. This is an application to quash the committal of six persons to stand their trial at the Court of Sessions, West Godawari. Four of them have been committed on a charge of extortion by putting a person in fear of death (Section 386, Indian Penal Code) and all six of them on a charge of criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B).2. The point taken before me is that under Section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code, no Court shall take cognisance of the offence of criminal conspiracy where the object of the conspiracy is to commit a non-cognizable offence unless the previous sanction of the Local Government or of the District Magistrate has been obtained. The offence punishable by Section 386, Indian Penal Code, is (rather strangely) non-cognizable. Admittedly, no sanction to prosecute or to initiate these proceedings was obtained. Admittedly also this objection to the Court's jurisdiction was not taken in the lower Court, but has been made for the first time in this petition.3. Now...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »