Chennai Court March 1938 Judgments
In Re: Appu Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad784; 175Ind.Cas.891; (1938)2MLJ43
ORDERHorwill, J.1. I find no reason to interfere. A statement by an accused person that the offence committed by him is a more serious one, not triable by the Magistrate, does not deprive the Magistrate of jurisdiction unless the prosecution accept the truth of that statement or the Magistrate is of opinion that it is true. As the accused was found in possession of wash, the presumption set out in Section 64 operates and the accused is presumed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 55 of Act I of 1886.2. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Abdul Rahiman Rowther Vs. M.J. JamalluddIn Sahib and Co., Through ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad799; (1938)2MLJ76
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question I have to decide is, whether the suit which has given rise to this petition, is exempted from the cognisance of a Provincial Small Cause Court. That turns upon the meaning of the words 'suit for an account' occurring in Article 31 of the Second Schedule to that Act. The course of, dealings was as follows: - The plaintiff's firm would advance monies to the defendant and the latter would consign goods for sale on commission. The defendant would be credited with the sale proceeds and debited with the commission and various kinds of charges. The plaintiff's firm thus held a dual character of creditor and agent, the defendant's position being that of debtor and principal. The question that has to be determined is, whether the plaintiff's suit, brought professedly for a specific amount is cognizable by a Provincial Small Cause Court. It is difficult, as has been observed in one of the cases cited before me, to reconcile the decisions on the point; nor is i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Balian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad795; (1938)2MLJ152
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The First Class Bench Magistrates, Negapatam,. convicted one Balian under Section 3 (12) of the Madras Town Nuisances Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10 and further bound him over under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, for six months.2. The case has been referred to this Court by the Sessions Judge of East Tanjore on the ground that the judgment of the Bench Court does not disclose any reason for the order binding over the accused to keep the peace. The accused was charged with causing disturbance by using abusive language and by behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner. Prima facie, behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner amounts to a breach of the peace, and as the Bench of Magistrates accepted the evidence and found the accused guilty of behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner, I do not see why one should doubt that the accused committed a breach of the peace.3. Newsam, J., in Appachi Goundan, In re (1937) Mad. Cri. C. 316 seemed to be o...
Tag this Judgment!Monni Aidruz Vs. Sappani Mira Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad57; (1938)2MLJ833
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the order of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly directing a re-sale of the property under Order 21, Rule 86, Civil Procedure Code, in execution of a decree obtained by the appellant against the first defendant is valid. The relevant facts are not in dispute. In execution of the said decree the property was sold on the 15th of September, 1933 and purchased by the 3rd respondent in this case. He deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase-money on the same date but committed default in payment of the balance of the purchase-money within 15 days as required by Order 21, Rule 85, Civil Procedure Code. He deposited the amount one day later. After the amount was so deposited the decree-holder applied for confirmation of the sale and for payment to him of the amount deposited in satisfaction of his decree. Notices were issued to the judgment-debtor and also to the Official Receiver who was appointed Receiver of the property of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kamalammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad667; (1938)1MLJ886
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Magistrates of the Juvenile Court, Madras, passed an order under Section 6, Clause (2) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act that the three girls found hi a house which was considered by the Police to be a brothel should be committed to the Rescue Home attached to the Vigilance Association.2. The Police searched a certain house and rescued these three girls and filed a case against the mother of two of the girls under Section 5 of the Act for keeping a brothel. After enquiry, the Magistrate acquitted her as there was no evidence that that woman (Kamalammal) had been actually allowing the house to be used for purposes of prostitution although there was evidence, which I do not think the Magistrate disbelieved, that two of the girls were actually engaged in prostitution when the house was raided by the Police.3. The only objection which can be raised to the order passed by the Magistrates is that it was not really passed under Section 6(2) at all, in that the s...
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Rajulu Vs. Rao Bahadur M. Govindan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad745; (1938)2MLJ249
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This is an application under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code, to transfer a suit from the Presidency Small Cause Court to the Madras City Civil Court. Two suits relate to the same matter and arise out of a contract between the parties. The suit filed in the City Civil Court is by the contractor alleging breach of contract by the person who entrusted the work to him. The suit in the Small Cause Court is by the person who entrusted the work, alleging breach of contract by the contractor. Each claims damages. It is clearly in the best interest of the parties to have these cases tried together and it would cause very great inconvenience if the two Courts were to give different findings on the same question, especially as an appeal would lie from one decision but not from the other.2. The transfer is however objected to on the ground that the City Civil Court is not competent to try or dispose of the suit within the meaning of Section 24(a), Civil Procedure Code. That ar...
Tag this Judgment!Rathnaswami Nadar and Ors. Vs. the Prince of Arcot's Endowments under ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ148
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Mr. Narayanaswami Aiyar, the appellants' learned Counsel, set himself to the task of showing that the judgment is wrong from the judgment itself, as beyond the pleadings nothing has been printed. His contention, that the lower Court's view that the lands form part of an 'estate', or that they answer the description of 'old waste', is wrong, does not require serious notice, as we cannot discover from the judgment that the appellants had any sort of possession, whether under the Act or outside it - which would confer on them any legal right.2. Then as to his next contention, the facts are briefly these : The defendants were sued under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, as representing a large number of villagers (about 150 in number) too numerous to be individually impleaded. In the plaint it is stated that in pursuance of a conspiracy, they combined in order to deny the plaintiffs' title and to take unlawful possession of the land. All that we need say is, tha...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Panchaksharam Alias Mannangatti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ225
Horwill, J.1. The accused Panchaksharam was charged by the Sessions Judge of South Arcot under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, with cutting the deceased Munuswami with a toddy drawer's knife on the head, back and abdomen. The learned Sessions Judge found on the evidence that the accused did strike the deceased Munuswami on the head, back and abdomen and caused the injuries alleged; but he held that the accused had neither the intention nor the knowledge which would bring the offence within the mischief of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. He found however that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt under grave and sudden provocation and so convicted him under Section 335, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The Crown has appealed against the acquittal under Section 304, Indian Penal Code.2. It was contended on behalf of the Crown that the findings of fact of the learned Sessions Judge must be accepted and that the arguments of the learned Counse...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.A.A. Audiappa Chetti and ors. Vs. the Taluk Board of Devakottah, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad941; (1938)2MLJ589
ORDER1. These seven appeals depend on the same issues of law and fact. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The I cause of action is that they were assessed to profession-tax in respect of a certain kind of income in the year 1928-1929 by the Taluk Board, Devakottah. The Board is the respondent. The suits were to recover the tax and for a declaration that it was illegally levied and for an injunction restraining the Board from levying it on such income in future. The learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottah, reversing the trial Court's decree dismissed the suits.2. It is objected by the learned advocate for the respondent that under Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code, no second appeal lies, since the suits are of a small cause nature, being merely to recover small sums of money. But the suits are, in addition, and perhaps mainly, for an injunction restraining the Board from taxing in future a particular kind of income which according to the appellants is not taxable as professional income ...
Tag this Judgment!Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Muthukaruppan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad849; (1938)2MLJ756
1. This appeal raises two questions. One is whether the minor members of a trading family can be held liable to the extent of their interests in the family properties for debts incurred in a business carried on by the father in partnership with strangers. The other question is whether a decree passed by consent in a partition suit puts an end to the joint status, notwithstanding that the terms of the decree are never carried into effect and the members of the family continue to live together and regard themselves, as still being joint.2. The appellant is the son of one Narayanan, a Nattukottai Chettiar, who died in 1927. Narayanan had two wives Unna-mulai and Alamelu. By Unnamulai he had three sons, A.M. A.N. Annamalai Chettiar (the third respondent), A.M.A.N. Natesan alias Chidambaram Chettiar (the fifth respondent), and A.M.A.N. Sambandam Chettiar (the sixth respondent). By Alamelu he had four sons. The eldest, Annamalai, predeceased his father and the youngest Yoganandam was given i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »