Chennai Court July 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: A. Venkataraghava Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad828
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted - and the conviction has been upheld in appeal-under Section 193, Local Boards Act, read with Section 207 and Schedule 7, for failure to obtain a license for storing and selling firewood during the year 1939-40 within the limits of the Panchayat Board of Uttaramerur and he has been fined Hs. 5. Schedule 7, Local Boards Act, unlike Schedule 6, City Municipal Act, does not require that a license should be taken out for storing firewood. It was unnecessary therefore for the petitioner to have taken out a license; and by not taking lout a license he committed no offence in storing firewood. Whether he could sell firewood without a license may depend on whether by doing so he was exercising a trade. But this case did not turn on that. It was assumed that a license was necessary for storing firewood and both Courts seem to have been under a misapprehension on that point. The conviction is therefore set aside and the fine refunded....
N.M.V. Vellayappa Chettiar Vs. Alagappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad289
ORDERSomayya, J.1. The Public Prosecutor showed me a copy of the Amiu's return on the warrant which was issued for the arrest of accused 2. The return mentions that the Amin was informed that accused 2 had gone to Epoh. Epoh is in the Federated Malay States and according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner he left India in March and that is not contradicted by the complainant in the affidavit which he has filed to-day before me. What is said is that he originally preferred a complaint on 1st February 1941, that the Magistrate forwarded the same to the police for enquiry, that the Court took it on file ultimately and that in the month of April, the complainant got information from the Magistrate that he had already issued notice to the accused on the police report The complainant states further that on one day which is said by the petitioner's advocate to be 31st May 1941, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant was absent when called. A fresh compl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›