Chennai Court March 1942 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: Venkitaswami Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad657
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The police charged four persons with the theft of a calf or, in the alternative, of an offence punishable under Section 411 or Section 414, Penal Code. All the four accused were convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Udumalpet. He sentenced accused 3 to a substantial term of imprisonment; but he thought that as the other three accused had not before committed any offence, they might well be released under Section 562, Criminal P.C. As the Magistrate had no powers to pass orders under Section 562, Criminal P.C., he referred the matter under the proviso to that section to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to pass the necessary orders. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate instead of doing this acquitted accused 1, 2 and 4. The Sessions Judge has referred the matter to this Court, expressing his opinion that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted illegally and without jurisdiction. There can be no doubt that the Sessions Judge was correct. Section 562, Criminal P.C., applies on...
Hota Veerabadhrayya and anr. Vs. Bolla Bulli Subbarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad650; (1942)2MLJ94
King, J.1. The ultimate transaction which has given rise to these appeals is the sale by defendants 2 to 4 of certain properties to defendant 1 in December, 1929. The consideration of Rs. 2,500 was by the terms of the sale-deed retained in the hands of defendant 1 for the purpose of discharging two debts due to plaintiff; one on a first mortgage and the other on a promissory note. The property sold was subject also to a second and a third mortgage. These mortgages the Vendors undertook to discharge.2. Defendant 1 did not discharge the promissory note debt and plaintiff accordingly sued in 1931 to recover it and obtained decree against defendants 2 to 4. In execution of that decree he attached the debt which he alleged to be due from defendant 1 to defendants 2 to 4 as unpaid purchase-money in respect of the sale. On notice being sent to defendant 1, he denied that any debt was due, con-1 ending that he was under no liability to pay the purchase-money until defendants 2 to 4 had cleared...
Pothuru Sreeramulu Chetti and anr. Vs. Duvvuru Subbarami Reddi and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad554; (1942)2MLJ90
1. These second appeals have been placed before a Full Bench for decision because they raise a question of Hindu law of some importance and there is no textual or other authority having any bearing.2. On the 7th September, 1931, Seshayya Chetti, the appellant in S. A. No. 58 of 1939 filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge of Nellore to recover an amount claimed by him to be due on a promissory note. The promissory note had been executed by the first respondent and his brother Rani Reddi, who is now dead and is represented by his sons, the second, third and fourth respondents. The defendants to the suit were the makers of the instrument and their respective sons, the family being joint. On the 26th September, 1931 the plaintiff obtained an interim order for attachment before judgment of the properties in suit and the interim order was made absolute on the 11th January, 1932. On the 7th October, 1932 the Court, passed a decree for Rs. 3,118 with interest and costs against the mak...
In Re: Bonthu Appadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad66; (1942)2MLJ580
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Vizianagaram of an offence punishable under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and ordered to pay fines of Rs. 25 each. They took the matter in appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Vizianagaram, who heard the appeal on 3rd January, 1941. He made notes of the arguments, and those notes show that the arguments were completed on that day. The case was then adjourned to 6th January, 1941, at Vizianagaram. Of what happened on 6th January, 1941, one cannot be quite sure; but the docket, which was written by a clerk, notes that the conviction and sentence were confirmed on 6th January, 1941. There was no note however by the Magistrate that he disposed of the case on 6th January, 1941, and nothing in his own hand to indicate what he did on that day. The affidavit of the pleader is to the effect that arguments were heard on 6th January, 1941, but that is not consistent with the entries made by the Magistrat...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Murthujakhan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad33; (1942)2MLJ581
Horwill, J.1. The accused was charged under Section 159(1) read with Section 207(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act for disobeying a lawful notice of, the District Board of Salem to remove an encroachment. He was duly convicted by the Sub-Magistrate of Dharmapuri and on appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharmapuri, set aside the conviction on two grounds. The first was purely on a question of fact; and he came to the conclusion that there had been no encroachment. Secondly, he held that a previous acquittal for the disobedience of a like notice in 1939 by the Panchayat Board was a bar to a conviction in the present case. The Crown has appealed.2. On the point of law the Magistrate is clearly wrong. The offence that the accused was alleged to have committed in 1939 was not the offence for which he has been charged now. The offence in both cases consisted of disobeying a particular order; but the order disobeyed in the present case was not the order that the accused disobeyed in 1939...
In Re: the Enrolment of C. Krishnaswami Chittoor Krishnaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ599
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The petitioner who is an advocate of the Rangoon High Court applies for enrolment as an advocate of this Court. He is an Indian and was born in Madras, but hitherto he has only practised in Burma, As the result of the invasion of Burma by 'the Japanese he has returned to the land of his birth and wishes to practise his profession here. The petitioner holds the degree of bachelor of arts and the degree of bachelor of laws of the University of Rangoon and it was on these qualification's that he was enrolled as an advocate of the Rangoon High Court some seventeen years ago.2. When the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, came into force Burma was a Province of British India and remained part of British India until the Government of India Act, 1935, came into operation on the 1st April, 1937. Until the separation took place the Rangoon High Court was a High Court within the meaning of the Bar Councils Act, but as the result of the separation the Act no longer a...
In Re: Chittoor Krishnaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad455
Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner who is an advocate, of the Rangoon High Court applies for enrolment is as an advocate of this Court. He is an Indian and was born in Madras, but hither to he has only practiced in Burma. As the result of the invasion of Burma by the Japanese he has returned to the land of his birth and wishes to practice his profession here. The petitioner holds the degree of Bachelor of Arts and the degree of Bachelor of Laws of the University of Rangoon and it was on these qualifications that he was enrolled as an advocate of the Rangoon High Court some 17 years ago. When the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, came into force .Burma was a Province of British India and remained part of British India until the Government of India Act, 1935, came into operation on 1st April 1937. Until the separation took place, the Rangoon High Court was a High Court within the meaning of the Bar Councils Act, but as the result of the separation the Act no longer applies to it. Section 8(1) sta...
Ranga Konar Vs. Pakkiri Vattachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad565
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner filed a complaint against a number of accused in the Court of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tanjore; and they were convicted. Rupees 25 was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The accused preferred an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore, and notice was apparently ordered to the District Magistrate and to the complainant. The complainant was not served at the first attempt; and the service was effected only on the day before the appeal was to be heard. An affidavit filed by the pleader for the petitioner alleges that the petitioner came to him only at 10-45 A.M. i.e., a quarter of an hour before the appeal was to be heard and represented that he had been served late the previous evening and had come straight to him. The pleader appeared in Court without a vakalat and the Magistrate could not of course hear him. The pleader then asked for an adjournment, which the same Magistrate refused. Nobody appeared on behalf of the ...
L.K. Minakshi Aiyar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Janaki R. Achalier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad592; (1942)2MLJ124
Somayya, J.1. There are two appeals, A.S. Nos. 328 of 1939 and 372 of 1940, both arising out of O.S. No. 12 of 1939 which was a suit for redemption of a mortgage executed by defendants 2 to 5 in favour of the first defendant under Ex. B, dated the 26th January, 1934. Defendants 2 to 5 executed a subsequent mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs under Ex. A, on the 27th August, 1937 and the plaintiffs filed the suit out of which the appeals arise for redeeming the prior mortgage in favour of the first defendant. Before filing the suit the plaintiffs deposited the amount which they considered to be due under the mortgage Ex. B in O. P. No. 45 of 1938. This was on the 29th October, 1938. They made the present first defendant the prior mortgagee alone a party and asked for the usual reliefs grantable under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. To this a statement of objections was filed by the respondent and two reasons were given by him for not accepting the amount deposited in Court....
The Province of Madras Represented by the Collector of Trichinopoly Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad719; (1942)2MLJ150
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of different suits but they raise the same question. The suits were filed by the Mother Superior of the Lady of Dolours Convent, Cantonment, Trichinopoly, to recover from the Government of Madras moneys which the Convent had been compelled to pay by way of water cess and road cess as the owner of certain lands in the Trichinopoly District. The suit out of which S.A. No. 1064 of 1939 arises was filed by the Mother Superior for the recovery of amounts collected in respect of the faslis which correspond to the years 1931-32, 1932-33 and 1933-34. The suit out of which S.A. No. 1047 of 1939, arises was filed by her for the recovery of similar exactions in respect of the fasli corresponding to the year 1934-35. The appeals are concerned merely with the question of the liability for water cess.2. The plaintiff's case is that under an arrangement with the Government the lands in suit are held free from land tax and that a cess which...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »