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.
In Re: W.K. Devaraja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad998; (1938)2MLJ582
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a lorry that was overloaded; and he was convicted under Section 15-A of the Motor Vehicles Act of suffering the lorry to be overloaded.2. The wording of Section 15-A and the general plan of the Act show that the burden was on the prosecution to show that the accused knew that the lorry was overloaded. Such knowledge could be proved by adducing evidence that, for example, the lorry had just left the owner's premises or that all the goods on the lorry had come from there. All we know in the present case, however, is that the lorry was overloaded. It is stated at the bar that the lorry was actually on its way from Conjeevaram to Madras. If so, it is unlikely that the accused knew that the lorry was overloaded.3. The prosecution did not therefore prove its case. The petition is accordingly allowed, the conviction set aside and the fine ordered to be refunded....
In Re: Navanithammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad3; (1938)2MLJ1065
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of robbery and causing grievous hurt in the course of the commission of the robbery and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 392 and 397, Indian Penal Code. She was charged along with her husband with those offences, but the husband was acquitted by the Sessions Judge after a trial with the aid of a jury. It cannot be argued in this case that there was not enough evidence which if believed would not support the verdict of the jury. The case for the prosecution briefly was that P.W. 2 a little girl of six years who used to go to the appellant's house for drinking water during the school interval went to the appellant's house on the 8th of April, 1937, along with some of her school mates, that she remained behind for the purpose of answering calls of nature, and that she never returned to the house even that night. Search was made for the girl and she was finally found in a room in the appellant's ho...
Sadachi Ammal Vs. Rajathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad315
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. These appeals arise out of the same suit and raise the same question for decision. The appellants are some of the legatees under a will (marked Ex. I) said to have been executed by one Sanjeevi Sundaram Pillai on 2nd September 1930; and the point for decision is whether the said will was executed by the deceased in a sound disposing state of mind (issue 1). Ex. I was registered at the residence of the deceased at 10 A.M. on 3rd September 1930 and the testator died after midnight of 4th September, i.e., early (2 A.M.) on 5th morning. The suit was instituted by the widow on 23rd February 1931, for a declaration that Ex. 1 was invalid and void and did not affect her rights under the Hindu law and under a prior will (Ex. B), dated 7th August 1930. As there were disputes about possession, the plaint also prayed for reliefs by way of injunction and delivery of possession (if necessary). The defendants may be divided into four groups. Defendant 1 who receives the larg...
S.Rm.Rm. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. A.R.P.L.S.P. Muthiah Chettiar (Dece ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ390
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This raises an important question bearing upon the power of the Court to allow an insolvency petition to be amended. The petition in the lower Court was presented by a person who described himself as a creditor of the insolvent. He alleged that Rs. 16,000 odd was due by the insolvent to a certain firm of which he claimed to be the sole proprietor; it was upon this assertion that he founded his claim to be solely entitled to the debt. The petition was filed on the 24th November, 1930, but on that date, an arbitration enquiry was pending, in regard to a dispute between the petitioner and a certain third party who claimed an interest in the partnership. By an award made on the 28th November, 1930, the petitioner became solely entitled to the debt on which the insolvency petition was founded. It being assumed that the petition as originally filed is incompetent (it is unnecessary in the view we have taken to discuss this point), the question arises whether the petiti...
K.M. Venkatachala Chetty Vs. N.D. Natesa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad670; (1939)1MLJ905
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for the dissolution of a partnership and for the taking of the accounts thereof. The respondent was the plaintiff. He claimed that in 1927 he and the appellant entered into a partnership for the purpose of supplying goods to jails and other institutions in this presidency, the appellant providing the finance and the respondent doing the work. The appellant denied that the relation between them constituted a partnership. His case was that the respondent was merely an employee who was to be remunerated on the basis of a share in the profits. The learned Judge held that there was in fact a partnership and passed a preliminary decree for the taking of accounts. In directing the Official Referee to take the accounts the learned Judge stated that any item of expenditure which was shown to be for an unlawful purpose was to be excluded. The reason for this direction was that bribes had been given to officials of...
Vedakannu Nadar Vs. Gnanayya Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad864; (1938)2MLJ402
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to a Bench on the ground that it raises an important question of law. The question turns upon the construction of Article 28 of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Under that article' a suit for a legacy, or for the whole or a share of a residue bequeathed by a testator, or for the whole or a share of the property of an intestate' is excepted from the cognisance of a Provincial Small Cause Court. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of certain jewels as the heir of the deceased wife. He alleges that upon her death in the house of her brother the defendant, the latter wrongfully took possession of her jewClause That the plaintiff has succeeded to his wife's property is not disputed by the defendant; in other words, the case raises no question of a disputed succession. In our opinion, on a proper construction of the relevant words, there must be a claim made by an heir as such, which claim is r...
Gottepulla Bapayya Naidu Vs. Peta Bapayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad975; (1938)2MLJ520
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application to commit the three respondents for contempt of Court. The petitioner is the Mokhasadar of Kondaporava, Kistna District. The first respondent is the President of the West Kistna Congress Committee, the second respondent is the Secretary of that Committee, and the third respondent is said to be the printer of the pamphlet which is the subject-matter of this petition. Last year there was trouble between the petitioner and the ryots on his estaie and he filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Tiruvarur, alleging an offence under the Cattle Trespass Act against 26 of the ryots. It was said that they had rescued cattle which were being taken to the pound after a trespass. He also complained that the ryots had unlawfully interfered with the produce of his forests and were guilty of 'turbulent acts endangering human life and property'. In this connection he instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›