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.
Kesarichand Kaverlal Vs. S.H.G. Nayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ523
Bell, J.1. In this case the plaintiff claims damages against two defendants for alleged acts of trespass. The plaint states that the plaintiff is a businessman whose income-tax affairs at all material times were being dealt with by the two defendants who were Income-tax Officers, the 1st defendant being the superior officer of the 2nd defendant. The plaint goes on to say that the two defendants were investigating the plaintiff's affairs, that there had been various interviews on the usual income-tax grounds and that on the 30th August, 1939, the 2nd defendant 'alleging and purporting to act under the orders of a superior officer (who was, at that time the '1st defendant') entered (the-plaintiff's) premises' and took away all the plaintiff's books of account against his will and consent. That is in paragraph 7 of the plaint. Paragraph 11 goes on to say that 'the 2nd defendant when questioned as to . the authority by which he trespassed into the said premises of the plaintiff and wrongfu...
Goverdhandoss Tokersey Vs. M. Abdul Rahiman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad634; (1942)2MLJ636
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for refund of Rs. 8,700 stated to have been advanced by the 3rd defendant as an agent of the plaintiff to the 1st defendant at the time of the execution of the agreement (Ex. J) on the 9th November, 1936. Under the terms of this agreement, the 1st defendant. who held a general power of attorney, dated the 24th March, 1936 from the 2nd defendant, agreed to sell to the 3rd defendant as an agent of the plaintiff 30 tons of sandalwood that may be got ready by the former out of the two estates (Benhope and Killiard), belonging to his principal in a period of one year at Rs. 800 per ton and any further quantity of wood that may be available out of the aforesaid estates at Rs. 780 per ton. The sum. of Rs. 7,800 was acknowledged to have been received by way of an advance in Ex. J and was agreed to be adjusted at the time when the goods were delivered to the 3rd defendant on behalf of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 100 per ton. The agreement...
Sri Sri Sri Palaharama Kanti Rajaram Das Bavaji of Balaga Vs. Duvvada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ592
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. The petitioner is dissatisfied with the order passed by the Joint Magistrate of Chicacole, refusing to adjudicate on the petitioner's rights and to pass orders restraining the counter-petitioners from interfering with the petitioner's possession.2. The petitioner is the Mahant of the Balaga Mutt. P.W. 2 is his tenant; and the counter-petitioners are a number of persons, including several sub-tenants of P.W. 2. During the course of the hearing it seems to have been argued that the Mahant had no locus standi; because he was not the person in actual possession. The Magistrate seems to have accepted that argument; but he also came to the conclusion that there was no danger of a breach of the peace and that the police had exaggerated the matter. He therefore dismissed the application.3. I agree with the learned Joint Magistrate that the Mahant is not a party to the dispute within the meaning of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. It has been held in many cases that Sec...
Kesarichand Kaverlal Vs. S H G Nayudu and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad167; [1942]10ITR413(Mad)
.BELL, J.-In this case the plaintiff claims damages against two defendants for alleged acts of trespass. The plaint states that the plaintiff is a businessman whose income-tax affairs at all material times were being dealt with by the two defendants who were Income-tax Officers, the first defendant being the superior officer of the second defendant. The plaint goes on to say that the two defendants were investigating the plaintiffs affairs, that there had been various interviews on the usual income-tax grounds and that on 30th August, 1939, the second defendant 'alleging and purporting to act under the 'order of a superior officer (who was at that time the first defendant) entered (the Plaintiffs) premises' and took away all the plaintiffs books of accounts against his will and consent. That is in paragraph 7 of the plaint. Paragraph 11 goes on to say that 'the second defendant when questioned as to the authority by which he trespassed into the said premises of the plaintiff and wrongf...
Kathersa Rowther Vs. Abdul Rahim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad580; (1942)2MLJ43
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which arises here is whether the defendant who pleads a set-off under Order 8, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, is to be deemed to be a plaintiff within the meaning of Order 2, Rule 2 and consequently has to suffer the consequences of an omission. Although the point of law can be stated shortly, the facts of the case are somewhat complicated and it is necessary in order to appreciate the position to refer to them at some length-2. Seeni Rowther, the father of the 1st and 2nd defendants, had four sons, the other two being named Mohammad Abdulla and Abdul Rahiman respectively. The father died on the 4th January, 1922, and in the following year the sons decided to partition the assets before discharging the debts due by the estate. Each of the brothers was allotted specific properties and he undertook to discharge specified debts. The terms of the partition were set out in a deed, dated 1st August, 1923. Bach brother agreed that if he did not di...
In Re: Muthandi Alias Periakaruppan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad444; (1942)1MLJ517
Horwill, J.1. The five appellants were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Madura of an offence punishable under Sections 457 and 395, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and ordered to report all changes of residence to the police for two years after release.2. The accused were tried by Jury and the verdict was unanimous. There are however one or two directions in the charge which are open to criticism. The most important defect in the charge is that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has admitted the whole of the confessional statement of the first accused without criticism or question. Only such portions of a confession as lead to the discovery of some fact material to the case can be admitted. What was discovered as a result of the confession of the first accused was a thali kodi wrapped up with a piece of charcoal in a piece of rag. The confession need not however be confined merely to that part of it which deals with the thali kodi. We ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›