Chennai Court June 1942 Judgments
In Re: Dakshinamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ146
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This petition was admitted because the learned Magistrates did not comply with the requirements of Section 370 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They should have given a brief statement of the reasons for the conviction. They merely said that they believed the prosecution witnesses without noting what the prosecution witnesses said and without any reference to the defence evidence. A brief statement of the reasons for conviction would necessitate a reference to what the prosecution witnesses had said, so that it could be shown that that evidence if believed would establish the offence with which the accused had been charged. If there had been no defence witnesses, it would then have been sufficient if the Magistrates had said that they believed the prosecution witnesses; but when there is defence evidence which is inconsistent with the prosecution story, some brief reasons should also be given why the defence evidence should be discredited.2. As this petition wa...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Rajam Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad674; (1942)2MLJ132
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Rajam Animal was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram of an offence punishable under Section 380, Indian Penal Code. She was a young woman of about 16 or 17 years of age at the time of her conviction. As she had had three previous convictions for which she had received three minor terms under the Children Act, the Magistrate realised that it would have been very desirable if Rajam could have been sent to a Borstal School; but he felt himself unable to pass an order to that effect because Borstal Schools are for boys only. He therefore sentenced her to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge seemed to think that the fact that in practice Borstal Schools are only for boys should not be an impediment to the passing of an order by the Court that the girl should be committed to a Borstal School. He passed an order accordingly. When the Sessions Judge made the usual reference to the Government asking them to make arrange...
Tag this Judgment!Cherukuri Indiradevi Being Minor by Next Friend and Father, N.C. Krish ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad35; (1942)2MLJ486
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant sued on a mortgage bond stipulating for compound interest at ten per cent. The date of the bond is 16th September, 1933. The two defendants are father and son. The 1st defendant is described as a Taluk Head Accountant. The, 2nd defendant is a minor. The lower Court held that the 1st defendant was disentitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 by reason of the fact of his payment of profession tax and held that as a consequence under Section 6 of the Act his son the 2nd defendant was also debarred from the benefits of the Act. We have held that Section 6 has no application to a family consisting only of a father and son, but that it is intended to apply to families in which there are several branches one or more of which is composed of father and son. There is, however, no appeal on behalf of the 2nd defendant. The lower Court has reduced the rate of interest from ten per cent. compound to ten per cent. simple quoting in support of that decision the Usurious...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Visweswara Gajapathi Raj, Minor Represented by His Mother Ran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad743; (1942)2MLJ496
Bell, J.1. In this case the question is whether, where a person succeeds to an ancestral impartible estate and also receives a legacy consisting of monies and, outstandings due by that estate, merger takes place and the legacy is extinguished. The facts may be stated shortly as follows One Chitti Babu Vijiaram Raju, one time Raja of Vizianagaram, executed a trust-deed on October, 28th, 1912, whereby he vested property in trustees to hold for himself for life with remainder over to his elder son Alakh Narayana Gajapathi Raja, for him to hold it as an ancestral impartible estate descending according to the law of primogeniture. He had another son named Vijia Ananda Raja. On the 11th September, 1922, the father died and on the 2nd October, 1922, the son, Alakh Narayana Gajapathi Raja, entered upon the ancestral estate and the trust came to an end. An aunt of Chitti Babu Vijiaram Raju, the Maharani of Rewa, had made a will on the 14th December, 1911, whereby she gave a life estate in her p...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapati Raju Bahadur Vs. Malla Ramunaidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ385
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application to scale down a decree for rent under Madras Act IV of 1938. The tenant paid the kattubadi for faslis 1347 and 1346 within the time stipulated under Section 15. He did not pay anything by way of interest on kattubadi. The landholder contended in the Court below that the deposit was bad because nothing was deposited by way of interest for those faslis. The lower Court held that this was immaterial, a decision which cannot be supported as a proposition of law. But I find in the record no materials upon which it could be held that interest was in fact due to the arrears of kattubadi for those faslis. No doubt in respect of rent under the Estates Land Act, Section 61 of that Act imposes a statutory liability for interest on arrears, but there is no such statutory, provision with reference to kattubadi and the ordinary rules of the Interest Act would apply. If the plaintiff wished to non-suit the applicant on the ground of ...
Tag this Judgment!F.P.S. Albuquerque Vs. the Catholic Bank, Ltd., Mangalore by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad737; (1942)2MLJ307
Byers, J.1. The only questions which arise in this second appeal are whether the resolution of the directors of the defendant bank removing the appellant from the board of directors was ultra, vires and, if so, the damages to which he is entitled.2. The respondents rely on article 78 (g) of the articles of association, which declares that the office of a director shall ipso facto be vacated:if he resigns, or fox any other reason becomes incapable of acting as a director.The ground on which the defendants relied to declare that the appellant had vacated his office was that he had defaulted in repaying a loan taken by him some years previously. The directors had earlier passed a rule that any director defaulting in repayment of a loan taken by him as principal borrower would cease to be a director. This rule, the respondents' learned advocate informs me, was passed under the powers conveyed by article 67 of the articles. This is clearly procedural only and gives no power to the directors...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Abdul Subhan Sahib Vs. M. Abdul Ravoof Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad707; (1942)2MLJ309
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point for consideration in this second appeal is whether the contract sought to be enforced in the suit is one to which the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act apply and the suit is hence not maintainable. Both the lower Courts have held that, though the partnership had not been registered, the contract did not come within the purview of Section 69 of the Partnership Act and that the suit is maintainable.2. The suit was for the recovery of money agreed to be paid by one partner to another under an agreement entered after the partnership was dissolved and accounts were looked into. It is an agreement entered into after the dissolution and in the course of the settlement of accounts as between the partners. It is true that the dissolution and the taking of accounts were contemporaneous but it cannot be said that the taking of accounts was not subsequent to the dissolution because there could have been no taking of accounts unless there was a di...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Rajagopala Iyer Vs. the South Indian Rubber Works, Limited and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad656; (1942)2MLJ228
Byers, J.1. The question of law which arises in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to revoke his application for shares in a company when, before the date of the allotment, the prospectus of the company is changed in material particulars. The brief facts of the case in so far as they are necessary are that the plaintiff had applied for shares in. the respondent company on the basis of the prospectus issued on 20th January, 1937, containing, inter alia, the names of several persons as directors and specifying the sum of Rs. 40,000 as the minimum sum upon which the company would proceed to allotment of the shares. Before the allotment took place, there were changes in the directorate, on which the plaintiff appellant relied as one ground on which he. could withdraw his offer and decline allotment; the minimum subscription required before allotment was reduced from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 10,000 and it was this proceeding which put the appellant upon enquiry. This important...
Tag this Judgment!The Sub-collector Vs. Pillarisetti Parthasarathi Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad739; (1942)2MLJ512
Krisknaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of certain land acquisition proceedings taken for the purpose of acquiring 648 sq. ft. in Town Survey No. 1625 /1-A in Ward No. 4, Block 39 in the Town of Rajahmundry. The land acquisition officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4-8-0 per square yard. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the District Judge of East Godavari enhanced the compensation by awarding Rs. 26 per square yard. The Government has preferred this appeal and objects to the award of the District Judge on the ground that it is too high.2. It is contended by the Government Pleader that the learned Judge was in error in proceeding to fix the market value with reference to the rent which was received from the property acquired. He has argued that Ex. II which is a sale-deed of neighbouring property furnishes the true basis for the award of compensation. Ex. II is dated 23rd July, 1928, and is a sale of 1000 square yards at Rs. 3 a square yard. In view of t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Yakub Sahib Yejaman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad406; (1943)1MLJ264
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits of the passing of an order under that section at the time of passing sentence. It is not therefore necessary that either the trial Court or the appellate Court should call upon the accused to show cause why he should not be bound over.2. The sentence is very moderate. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »