Chennai Court February 1941 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: V.S. Somasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad597; (1941)1MLJ464
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Rule 38 of the Defence of India Rules for having done a prejudicial act and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 50.2. 'Prejudicial Act' is defined in Rule 34 (6). Many groups of prejudicial acts are described in this rule, but the learned Crown Prosecutor relies on Sub-clauses (b), (c), (d) and (1). The learned Magistrate has not referred in particular to any of these sub-clauses; but has merely said that the speech of the petitioner is a prejudicial act which is punishable under Rule 38 (5). The speech of the petitioner consisted of a tirade against the police. He said that although they are poorly paid men of no status, yet they give themselves airs and strut about doing no work. He suggests that they are acting against the workers in the interests of the capitalists. The speech also contains threats of what might be done to the police if they continue as they are at present.3. Clause (...
Swayampakula Subbaramayya and ors. Vs. Swayampakula Venkatasubbamma an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad513; (1941)1MLJ724
Pandrang Row, J.1. My learned brother has prepared a judgment dealing with both the points that arise in this appeal, namely, the question of fact whether there was a form of marriage gone through by the first respondent with the deceased Janakiramamoorthy and the question of law whether such a marriage is valid according to Hindu law. I have had an opportunity of seeing that judgment and it would have been unnecessary for me to deliver a separate judgment of my own but for the fact that, on the question of the factum of the marriage, I find myself unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother. I am of opinion that no sufficient reason has been shown for disturbing the finding of the trial Judge on this point.* * * *2. [Then his Lordship discussed the evidence and concluded that there was an actual marriage.]3. On the other point, however, I find myself in full agreement with my learned brother, and, as the subject will be dealt with very fully by him in his judg...
In Re: Vedaranyaswami Devasthanam, Represented by Its Managing Trustee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad464; (1942)1MLJ451
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J. 1. A batch of twenty-eight suits for acceptance of patta and execution of muchilika by the tenants were brought by the landlord in the Court of the Sub-Collector, Negapatam. Under a notification of the Madras Government no. court-fee is leviable on such plaints. Appeals were preferred by the landlord from the decree passed by the Sub-Collector to the District Court, Bast Tanjore. Since the notification granting exemption in regard to plaints was not applicable to appeals, a court-fee of Rs. 10 under Article 17-B, Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act was paid in regard to each appeal. The landlord not being satisfied with the order passed by the District Judge preferred these second appeals to this Court and since the appellant considered the appeals to be incapable of any valuation, he paid a court-fee of Rs. 25 in regard to each appeal. The office raised the objection that the court-fee paid by the appellant was calculated on a wrong basis and that it should have be...
Gonuguntla Maha Latchayya Vs. Tadepalli Adi Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ244
Mockett, J.1. This is a petition under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in S.C.S. No. 180 of 1936. The main point on which I have listened to the interesting arguments of Mr. V. Govindarajachari and Mr. P. Satyanarayana Rao concerns limitation. It is a point on which I should have expected to find a wealth of authority but on which I find in fact there is no authority directly in point. The defendant is alleged to have sold to the respondent (plaintiff) large quantities of oil and the suit was concerned with two contracts--a contract dated the 17th March, 1933, in respect of 1000 tins which were to be delivered before the 31st May, 1933 and another contract dated the 25th May, 1933, for 1000 tins, delivery in this case to be before the 30th July, 1933. I am concerned only with the first contract so far as limitation is concerned. The relevant facts are as follows : The breach alleged in respect of the first contract was on the 31st M...
Kallepalli Subbayya Vs. Kurra Venkatadri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad921; (1941)2MLJ395
Mockett, J.1. The petitioner was the first plaintiff in a suit. The following is the history of the case. On 8th October, 1937, a reference was made through the Court to arbitration, the time for the award being fixed for the 15th November, 1937. There was much delay and time was finally extended to the 25th January, 1938. On that day an order was made adjourning the suit to the 11th February. On the 5th March, the Court passed an order cancelling the reference to arbitration. That is an appealable order under Section 104(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, but no appeal has been filed against it. On 12th March, 1938, the arbitrators submitted an award notwithstanding the order of the 5th March and on the 25th March, the lower Court in a brief order cancelled its order of the 5th March, that is, the order cancelling the reference. No civil revision petition was filed against that order and no further action taken by the petitioner except that on 3rd June, 1938, objections were filed by the...
K.P. Kesavalu Naidu Vs. A.R. Venkatarama Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad35; (1941)2MLJ450
Somayya, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam passed in S.C.S. No. 218 of 1937. The plaintiff whose suit was dismissed in the lower Court is the petitioner before me.2. The suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 941-11-4 against the defendants. The suit was originally filed in the Presidency Town Small Cause Court, Madras. That Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and passed an order returning the plaint to be presented to the proper Court. When making that order, it is admitted that there was a condition attached to it, namely, that the costs of the defendants should be paid before the suit was presented in the proper Court. Without paying the costs so directed, the plaintiff presented the plaint in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. Objection was taken that such institution is improper and the amount was tendered in December, 1937. The cause of action is said to have arisen in the beg...
In Re: Marimuthu Kavandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad694
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The only circumstance proved against the petitioner is that his wife produced the stolen properties from the house where both were living and this would not warrant the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411, Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are therefore set aside and his bail bonds will be cancelled....
In Re: Sorimuthu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad894; (1941)2MLJ399
Sydney Burn, Officiating C.J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly for the murder of his sister Parvathi and for attempting to murder his sister's daughter Gomathi. He has been sentenced to death for the offence of murder and the learned Sessions Judge has quite properly not passed any separate sentence for the offence of attempting to murder.2. The case was a simple one and there was a large number of eye-witnesses. The appellant's daughter Valli (P.W. 10) had been married to Rangayya, a son of the appellant's sister Parvathi. Rangayya died on the 25th June, 1940, and his body was cremated before the appellant and his daughter Valli could reach the village. The appellant's brother Avadiappa Pillai (not examined as a witness) appears to have said that since Rangayya's body had been cremated, Valli's tali ought to be taken off at once. Valli and her father both objected to this. There were further troubles caused by the fact that Parvathi who wa...
Sri Raja Venkatadri Apparao Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Timmaraju Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad635; (1941)1MLJ793
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The appellant is the Zamindar of Vuyyur and was the defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises. It was filed by the respondent to recover damages for an alleged wrongful attachment of his property. The trial Court (the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada) decided against the respondent and dismissed the suit, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada reversed the decision of the District Munsif and granted the respondent a decree for Rs. 23-12-2. The appellant appealed to this Court, but his appeal was dismissed by King, J., who agreed with the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, but gave a certificate which permitted the filing of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The real question involved in this appeal is whether the case is governed by the decision of the Full Bench in Krishna Aiyar v. Arunachalam Chettiar : (1935)69MLJ349 , or by the judgment in Kotla Satyam v. Thammana Perraju (1931) 34 L.W. 399 which was dec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›