Chennai Court August 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: Lakshmipathi Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad168; (1938)1MLJ426
Pandrang Row, J.1. As many as ten persons were accused in the Court below and the charge in the case consisted of no less than seven counts. Only the appellant was convicted and that too under counts 2 and 3 alone and the remaining accused nine in number were acquitted and the other counts seven in number were found to be not established.2. The conviction of the appellant is in respect of the alleged throwing of a bomb by him at the deceased Ayyappa Naicker at about 5 P.M. on the 22nd March, 1937, at Ettakkappatti. In respect of this act a charge of murder was framed against the appellant as well as a charge under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and he was convicted under both the counts and given concurrent sentences of transportation for life under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. As regards the latter charge, that is, under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, an objection was taken in the Court below and the same objecti...
Mukkamala Hanumayamma Vs. Kasineni Lakshmidevamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad950; (1938)2MLJ632
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question regarding the position of a person who starts to intermeddle with the estate of a minor and involves a decision as to what it is that first gives to that person the status of a de facta guardian. The appellant is the plaintiff who sued to recover a legacy of Rs. 1,700 due to her under the will of her deceased husband. The first defendant is the sister of the deceased husband and executrix of his will. The second defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the alleged de facto guardian. The third defendant is the brother of the deceased husband. The facts as found by the lower Courts are as follows: The plaintiff was 15 years old when her husband died on or about 10th of February, 1918. At that time she had been living with her husband for about a year. Shortly after the death of her husband, her mother, the second defendant who does not contest the suit and has not given evidence, demanded on behalf of her daughter, the plaint...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chikka Rangan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad949; (1938)2MLJ659
Pandrang Row, J.1. These appeals raise the same question. The Bench Magistrates of Ootacamund acquitted the accused in these cases, who were charged with having overloaded their pack ponies and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (XI of 1890). The acquittal was pronounced without hearing any evidence, and on the preliminary point that under Sections 1 and 2 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Local Government have to determine the maximum weight to be carried by pack ponies, and that as the determination has not been made and the District Magistrate's orders had not been published in the local Gazette, the prosecution was incompetent. The whole of this reasoning proceeds on a misconception of the law on the subject and there can be no doubt that these requirements are not necessary for a determination of the case on the merits. It is for the Bench Magistrates to decide whether as a matter of fact there was ...
M. Govindarajulu Chetty and anr. Vs. O.C. Ramaswami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ505
Burn, J.1. It is not I think possible for a Court to order the issue of a proclamation of sale while a claim petition is pending. Order 21, Rule 58(2) of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to this case. The learned District Munsif's order 'meanwhile the sale will be proclaimed' is therefore without jurisdiction and is set aside.2. I make no order as to costs in this petition....
T.G. Rajan Vs. the Asiatic Government Security Life Assurance Co., Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ1020
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an action for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000 and interest payable on a life policy issued by the defendant company on the life of Thiruvengadatha Aiyangar the father of the plaintiff in July, 1923. Under the terms of the policy the premium had to be paid quarterly during the whole period of the life of the assured on the third day of every July, October, January and April. The policy witnessed that provided the company received the premiums as set out in the schedule thereunder the company would on due proof of the occurrence of the event described in the schedule, of the age of the life assured, and of title, pay to the person to whom the assurance was granted, or his executors, administrators or assigns, the sum assured stated in the schedule. The event mentioned in the schedule was the death of the assured and as already stated, the premiums were to be paid quarterly on the dates specified above. The policy further provided that the policy and the...
M. Govindarajulu Chetty and ors. Vs. O.C. Ramaswamy Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad6
ORDERBurn, J.1. It is not, I think, possible for a Court to order the issue o a proclamation of sale while a claim petition is pending. Order 21, Rule 58(2), Civil P.C., does not apply to this case. The learned District Munsif's order, 'meanwhile the sale will be proclaimed,' is therefore without jurisdiction and is set aside. I make no order as to costs in this petition....
In Re: Mohideen Pichai Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad43
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellants six in number appeal from their convictions and sentences by the Sessions Judge of Madura in S.C. No. 93 of 1937. The charge in that case consisted of no less than sixteen counts and as many as 22 persons were accused in the case. The appellants alone were convicted and the rest were acquitted. The convictions now appealed from relate only to counts 1 and 2, the first count being one of rioting which was against 12 persons under Section 148, Penal Code, and against the remaining ten under Section 147, Penal Code. The second count is one of murder. The conviction is not for murder or culpable homicide but under Section 324, Penal Code. The occurrence to which the case relates took place some time in the morning of 21st December 1936 and it arose out of a dispute regarding the groundnut crop in Section No. 442-2 in the village of Chokkalingapuram, to which the accused belong. The prosecution party headed by accused Kailasam Chetti appear to have gone to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›