Chennai Court May 1938 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.
Kotakonda Venkatesulu Naidu Vs. Golla Chittappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad820; (1938)2MLJ285
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. I see no sufficient reason to think that the order of compensation made by the Taluk Magistrate in this case under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act is not just. In view of the concurrent finding of the Courts below, it must be held that the seizure and detention of the sheep and goats belonging to the complainant and his party were wrongful and illegal and I do not think it makes much difference to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate if the person who is responsible for the wrongful or illegal detention happens to be a Forest Officer who claims to act under colour of the Forest Act, if as a matter of fact, the seizure and detention had nothing to do with any forest. It is however contended that the amount of compensation awarded, namely, Rs. 75 is excessive and that this excessive amount was arrived at as a result of a misconception of the Magistrate that he was at liberty to include in the compensation payable under Section 22 of the Act the fees paid by th...
In Re: A.S. Pandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad821; (1938)2MLJ281
Pandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner was convicted of being in possession of a wireless receiving set without a licence under Sections 3 and 6 of Act XVII of 1933 and also of working the same without a licence under Section 20 of Act XIII of 1885 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60 under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and a fine of Rs. 75 under the Indian Telegraphs Act in respect of the same wireless receiving set. These fines were reduced on appeal by the Sessions Judge to Rs. 20 and Rs. 25 respectively; it will thus be seen that even in the appellate Court the separate sentences were retained. It is, to say the least, extremely doubtful whether the use of a wireless receiving set without a licence would amount to an offence under Section 20 of the Indian Telegraphs Act which in view of Section 4 of that Act could not have been intended to include wireless receiving sets used ordinarily to receive broadcast programmes. In my opinion there is no justification for a separate conviction und...
Ramaswami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Patrachar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ509
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. In this case the Sub-Magistrate of Valangiman made a certain order under Section 144(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Both the parties applied to the Joint Magistrate of Kumbakonam under Sub-section (4) of Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code and after hearing these petitions, the learned Joint Magistrate not only rescinded the order of the Sub-Magistrate but went further and made certain other orders which had nothing to do with the order which was sought to be rescinded or altered. In other words, he made a positive order prohibiting respondents 2 to 8 in one of the petitions from in any way interfering with the execution by the trustee of a certain undertaking given by him and another prohibiting respondents 2 and 3 from entering the temple without the written consent of the trustee. In a somewhat similar case where the superior Magistrate did not confine himself to rescinding the order of the inferior Magistrate but went to the length of prohibiting certai...
Laldas Lakshmi Das and anr. Vs. J.D. Italia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad918; (1938)2MLJ531a
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants are a firm of merchants carrying on business in Madras. For the period from the 1st August, 1936 to the 31st July, 1937, the respondent acted as their 'guarantee' broker in the purchase of groundnuts. The terms of the respondent's employment were embodied in a written agreement, which provided that in the event of any dispute arising under the agreement the dispute should be referred to arbitration in Bombay. The respondent was to be responsible for the weight, quality and refraction of the purchases made by him in the moffasil and the appellants were to be at liberty to refuse any lot of inferior quality despatched to them by him. By refraction was meant allowance for dirt and damaged and half-damaged seeds. The arrangement between the parties was that the respondent should issue certificates of quality before despatching goods to the appellants in Madras. On arrival of the goods the appellants had them examined and if it was found that...
Vedakannu Nadar and ors. Vs. Nanguneri Taluk Singikulam Annadana Chatr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad982; (1938)2MLJ663
ORDER1. The costs will be paid by Medai Dalavai Ranganatha Mudaliar (respondent No. 1), Medai Dalavai Kumaraswami Mudaliar (respondent No. 2), and Chellammal, the widow of Medai Dalavai Shanmuga Kumaraswami Mudaliar, from the assets in their hands of Thirumalayappa Mudaliar.Appeal2. It follows from my judgment in the connected appeal that the lower Court's decree here is also reversed and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout....
G.N. Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Anna M. Venkatachalapathi Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad904; (1938)2MLJ397
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners, nineteen in number, have been convicted of the offence of defamation and sentenced under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each and in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The defamation consisted in the presentation of a certain petition to the Sub-Inspector of Police by the residents of a certain locality in Madura against the complainant alleging that he was in the habit of getting drunk and abusing people and threatening to do evil by the use of black art and praying for protection against the complainant. There can be no doubt that the so-called defamation was the presentation of a petition to a public officer with the intention of protecting the interests of the people who sent the petition. That fact stands out unmistakably, and this outstanding fact has been practically ignored by the learned Magistrate. The case clearly fell under the 8th exception which declares that:It is not defamation...
In Re: T. Venkatasubba Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad879; (1938)2MLJ372
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ariyalur to the effect that accused 1 to 6 illegally distrained his bulls at the instigation of the seventh accused. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, without assigning any reasons, declined to take any action against the seventh accused. He merely passed an order, 'Issue summonses to A-1 to A-6'. The petitioner went in revision to the District Magistrate who passed an order:The enquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, showed that the seventh accused took no part in the alleged removal of bulls and was not present at the scene of the alleged offence. The lower Court was right in declining to issue process to him. I see no reason to interfere in revision.2. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the seventh accused that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this revision petition. Although the offence is said to have been one under Section 212 of the Madras Estates Land A...
T.N. Borai Goudar Vs. Commissioner, Ootacamund Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad832; (1938)2MLJ394
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was charged before the Bench of Magistrates, Ootacamund, under Sections 249 and 313 of the District Municipalities Act for storing firewood. During the pendency of the case before the Bench, the accused put in a transfer application in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Coonoor, who ordered the transfer of the case to the Court of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Coonoor. Before however that order had been communicated to the Bench Magistrate's Court, the case came up for before the Bench and on the accused's plea he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5. This petition has been filed on the ground that the Bench Court ceased to have jurisdiction after the order of the Joint Magistrate and that therefore the order of that Court is illegal.2. With regard to stay applications in civil matters it has been held by the Full Bench in Venkatachelapati Rao v. Kameswaramma : (1917)33MLJ515 that the stay order operates only from the date of which the...
The Official Assignee Vs. P. Suryakanthammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad927; (1938)2MLJ609
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question with regard to the right of the Court to commit to prison for contempt persons who have deliberately aided an insolvent in defying an order of the Court lawfully passed in the exercise of the insolvency jurisdiction.2. On the 15th September, 1936, one B.G. Sundaram Naidu was adjudicated insolvent. His assets included a house No. 45, Guruvappa Chetti Street, Chintadripet, in which he, his wife and his son were living. This property was mortgaged to one Lakshmi and in the course of the administration of the estate the Official Assignee sold the property to the mortgagee. At the time of the sale the insolvent and his family were occupying the upper floor of the house and the room downstairs were in the occupation of tenants. On the 3rd May, 1937, the learned Judge sitting in Insolvency (Wadsworth, J.) passed an order requiring the insolvent to vacate the premises on or before the 7th of that month. The tenants vacated the roo...
Vaiyapuri Chettiar Vs. the Municipal Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad916; (1938)2MLJ579
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Sections 177 and 339 of the District Municipalities Act, in that he failed to carry out the order of the Municipality of Salem to connect the roads on a plot which originally belonged to him with the Trichinopoly main road and to fill up pits in a certain road.2. Under Section 176 of the District Municipalities Act the Municipality can grant permission for the construction of private streets and it may lay down conditions under which that permission is accorded. Under Section 177 it is prescribed that if any person makes or lays out any street referred to in Section 176 otherwise than in conformity with the orders of the Council, the Municipality may issue a notice calling upon him to carry out his agreement within a certain specified reasonable time. If he fails to do so, the Municipality can take action under Section 177(2). Section 339 makes punishable any neglect or refusal to do an act in compliance with any proper order of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »