Chennai Court January 1939 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: Krishna Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1939
Reported in: (1939)IMLJ266
ORDERPandrang Rao, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 5, Clause 1(d) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act III of 1918. The charge is that he sold milk below the standard of purity prescribed by Government. The charge that was framed against the accused did not state whether it was buffalo's milk or cow's milk that was said to have been sold by him contrary to law. The certificate of analysis in this case by the Government Analyst is to the effect that the sample contained 60-5 parts of genuine milk, 35-0 parts of added water and 4-5 parts of cane sugar in a total of 100 parts. But this opinion as to the composition of the sample was based according to the certificate on the fact that the sample contained only 34 per cent, milk fat and only 0-321 per cent, nitrogen and 4-5 per cent, cane sugar whereas it is laid down in G.O. No. 1867 P.H. dated 1st September, 1932, that genuine buffalo milk contains at least 4-5 per cent, milk fat and a...
Synemodelux Limited by Its Managing Director M.P. Nayagam Vs. K. Vanna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad498; (1939)1MLJ534
Burn, J.1. In my opinion the dismissal of the suit by the learned Subordinate Judge was correct. The defendant subscribed for 20 shares in the memorandum of association and therefore by Section 30, Sub-section (1) of the Companies Act, he must be deemed to have agreed to become a member of the company, and on registration of the company, his name must be entered as a member in the register of members. The fatal defect, in my opinion, in the plaintiff's case is that the 20 shares for which the defendant subscribed were not validly allotted to him. It is no doubt true, - as Mr. Rangaswami Aiyangar for the petitioner contends, that in the case of a person who subscribes to the memorandum of association, no separate application for shares is necessary, but I find: nowhere any authority for the view that no express allotment of shares is necessary in order to give rise to a liability to pay up the value of the shares. The learned Advocate for the petitioner refers me to Resolution No. 9 pas...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ23
ORDER21. It is now brought to our notice that before the hearing the guardian of minors 5 and 6 was dead. Adjourned one month to appoint a guardian for the minors. The drawing up of the decree will be postponed in the meanwhile.22. These appeals having been posted for orders again this day, the Court made the following....
Karuppiah thevan and anr. Vs. N. Krishna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad437; (1939)1MLJ444
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The offence alleged in this case is similar to the one that was the subject-matter of Crl. R.C. No. 389 of 1935, disposed of by K.S. Menon, J., namely, Satyanarayana v. Venkanna (1935) M.W.N. 1033, the offence being the snatching away of the minutes book by a member of a Panchayat Board from the member who was presiding at the meeting apparently with a view to prevent him from making an entry therein which was objected to. Both the accused in the case are members and one is charged with having instigated the other to snatch away the minutes book. A reading of the complaint shows that from the beginning to the end reference is made to the official character of the various acts and occurrences that took place leading up to the snatching away of the minutes book. It may be that the snatching away of the minutes book is not a part of the official duties of a member of the Panchayat Board, but the question for decision is not whether the particular act alleged was wi...
In Re: K.S. Ambi Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad375; (1939)IMLJ332
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 5, Clause 1(d) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act III of 1918 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The petitioner is the proprietor of a Coffee Hotel at Vellore and the prosecution relates to a certain sweetmeat called 'kajoor' which was prepared and sold at the hotel by the petitioner through his servants. The sample that was analysed was found to contain 80 per cent, of fat not derived from milk or cream. The prosecution assumed and the Magistrate seems to have acted on the same assumption that merely because the sweetmeat was found to contain 80 per cent, of fat not derived from milk or cream it amounts to adulteration which is prohibited by the Act. The particular sweetmeat in question is not one of the articles of food in respect of which the Government have prescribed standards of purity or determined the normal constituents thereof, and it cannot be said that there is an...
In Re: Perumal Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad551; (1939)1MLJ579
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner was convicted of an offence punishable under Rules 13 and 15 of the rules framed under Section 26 of the Madras Forest Act, namely, illicit quarrying of sand and stone from a public cart track and his conviction was upheld in appeal by the Joint Magistrate of Ramnad who laid stress on the fact that the quarrying was in a public path or track though it has little bearing on the character of the offence. Rule 15 merely provides a penalty in respect of breaches of the preceding rules and in this particular case the rule which is said to have been infringed is Rule 13 which relates to quarrying on reserved and unreserved lands. In the present case the place where the quarrying took place is unreserved land and the rule does not make any difference between places where quarrying is unobjectionable and places where quarrying is objectionable. It does not prohibit quarrying in one place and allow it in another place. The first part of the rule declares t...
Karuppiah Kone Vs. Chitran Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ404
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The complainant in the case is the petitioner before me. He is a process-server and the case for the prosecution was that he and another person, namely, P.W. 2 in the case, were beaten and that they received injuries when the complainant was about to effect the arrest of the first accused in pursuance of a warrant. There appear to have been two complaints, one by the process-server and another by P.W. 2 and they were both inquired into at the same time by the Taluq Magistrate of Sivaganga who convicted the three accused under Sections 225, 323, Indian Penal Code, two of the three accused being also convicted under Section 353, Indian Penal Code.2. On appeal by the accused the Joint Magistrate of Ramnad without going into the merits of the case ordered a retrial, presumably after reversing the convictions and sentences on the ground that the offence disclosed against accused 2 and 3 was not merely an offence under Section 353, Indian Penal Code, which was within ...
Rao Bahadur V. Ranganadham Chetty Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad810; (1939)2MLJ33
Pandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case, was convicted under Section 380 of the Madras City Municipal Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The charge against him was that he failed to comply with a certain notice issued by the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras under Section 217 of the Madras City Municipal Act. The notice Ex. A-2 is dated 3rd June, 1936 and it appears to have been served on the petitioner on the 6th July, 1936. It called upon the petitioner to alter a certain street which had been laid out by him in R.S. No. 828/2 of Mylapore without the orders of the Standing Committee. It is admitted that this notice was not obeyed and that what was required in that notice was not done by the petitioner either within the time allowed or till now. Disobedience therefore to the notice is clearly established and as the notice was one which was issued subsequent to the coming into force of the Act ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›