Chennai Court August 1942 Judgments
In Re: Kota Appalakonda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad740; (1942)2MLJ553
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners were charge-sheeted by the police under Sections 147, 148, 447, 324 and 323, Indian Penal Code. They applied for bail and the Magistrate granted bail under Section 496 subject to a condition in these words,accused will be released on a bond of Rs. 250 with two sureties for like sums and on condition that they will not enter on the disputed land till disposal of the case.The question that arises in this petition is whether this condition is one permissible by law.2. With regard to non-bailable offences, I can see no objection to imposing conditions of this kind; for the Magistrate has an option to grant bail or to refuse bail and he has also the power under Section 497 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code of causing persons so released to be arrested and committed to custody, whichhe would apply in case the condition was not fulfilled. But all the offences with which the petitioners were charged are bailable offences, with regard to which a Magistrate ha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A. Abdul Salaam Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad41; (1942)2MLJ577
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 123(1) and Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act of permitting his motor vehicle to be used by his driver in a public place.2. Two points were taken in this petition. The first is that the vehicle was not being 'used', within the meaning of that term in Section 42 (1) and the second is that the petitioner did not 'permit' the driver to use the vehicle.3. It is true that Chapter IV does deal with the control of transport vehicles and contemplates primarily the control of the carriage of goods for hire or for reward. Section 42 (2) lays down certain rules for determining for the purposes of that chapter whether a transport vehicle is or is not used for carriage of goods for hire or for reward; but Section 42 (1) is more general and prohibits the use of a transport vehicle for any purpose in a public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by proper authority. It is admitted that to the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Arumuga thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ613
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been fined Rs. 20 under Section 3, Clause (12) of the Town Nuisance Act. He has also been bound over under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, to execute a bond for keeping the peace for a period of two years.2. In revision I do not find any reason for not accepting the finding of fact that the petitioner was drunk and disorderly on the day in question. It is pointed out that such an offence is not a cognizable one and that P.W. 1 should himself have filed the complaint and not the police. However that may be, that cannot be a sufficient reason for interfering in revision with a just order.3. This case was admitted with regard to the order passed under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code. It is generally undesirable where a person is charged with some petty offence, to tack on to some small sentence of fine an order under Section 106, which in most cases, in view of the poverty of the accused persons would necessitate their remaining in jail for...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jambulingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad61; (1942)2MLJ629
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tirupathur of an offence punishable under Section 78 read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 8. The conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Devakottai.2. The gravamen of the offence with which the petitioner was charged was that he exceeded the speed limit laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act. That speed limit is ordinarily 30 miles an hour under the VIII Schedule; but the Provincial Government or some authority specially authorised can prescribe lower limits for certain areas under Section 71 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the lower speeds are fixed by notification in the Gazette. In order to bring home this offence to the accused the prosecution have to prove two things : (1) that a certain speed has been laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act as the maximum speed that a vehicle should attain, and (2) that the dr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bichal Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad217; (1942)2MLJ670
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners in all these cases were convicted for driving their buses at a speed exceeding that fixed by the Regional Transport Authority for application to the Madura Municipal limits. The speed fixed was a maximum of 15 miles an hour, and the petitioners were found to have been driving at speeds exceeding that by about three or four miles an hour.2. It was admitted by the Police in the lower appellate Court that the fixing of the speed limit by the Municipality was not published by notification until the 24th November, 1941, whereas the offences which were the subject of these petitions were committed on the 9th August, 1941. The question is whether a notification is necessary before an offence can be committed or whether notification is merely a method of publishing the speeds fixed, so that those using the roads may know what speeds have been fixed. The Police have said--and the Magistrates have believed them--that the petitioners and others were informed lon...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Raja Kandimalla Venkata Rama Narasimha Rao Bahadur Zamindar Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad106; (1942)2MLJ658
Byers, J.1. The essential facts leading to this revision petition are that a suit on a promissory note was brought against the makers and also against the present petitioner, in whose favour the note had been executed and by whom it had been endorsed to the plaintiffs in that suit for consideration. A decree was obtained against the makers and also against the petitioner and his two sons. In execution of that decree some of the petitioner's property was sold and he eventually brought a suit in the District Judge's Court at West Godavari for a declaration that the decree was not executable against him and for consequential relief in the shape of setting aside the execution sales already held together with an injunction preventing further execution against him. The basis of this claim to avoid execution was an agreement which the petitioner alleged had been entered into between himself and the decree-holders prior to the institution of the suit on the note to the effect that no remedies ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: N.P. Esappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ543
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The special officer of the Panchayat Board of Nattarasankottai filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 157 of the Local Boards Act of erecting a wall and structure on the public road. The petitioner thereupon filed a civil suit in the Local District Munsiff's Court for establishing his right to the property and praying for an injunction restraining the defendant Board from interfering with his rights. At the same time he filed an application for a temporary injunction restraining the special officer from proceeding with the prosecution of the criminal case. The District Munsiff granted the injunction prayed for; and so both the special officer and the Criminal Court felt that the criminal case could not be proceeded with. As it however seemed to the District Magistrate that he might proceed with the case under Section 223 of the Local Boards Act, the Public Prosecutor intervened and sought to continue the prosecution on behalf of the Government. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Srinivasa Rajagopala Aiyangar Vs. Sri Santhanaramaswami Koil Vaga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad183; (1942)2MLJ565
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act for the recovery of rent and local cess for faslis 1342, 1343 and 1344. The trial Court granted a decree for the rent due for all the faslis and the local cess due for fasli 1342 only, disallowing the claim for the cess in respect of faslis 1343 and 1344. Both parties appealed and while the appeals were pending the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act came into force. Under the provisions of Section 15 of that Act the defendant, appellant herein, who is an agriculturist, paid the rent for faslis 1346 and 1347 and claimed that the arrears due for the earlier faslis including the rent now sued for should be deemed to be discharged. This claim was allowed. As regards the local cess which is not affected by that Act, the learned District Judge held that the landholder was entitled to the cess claimed for all the faslis and passed a decree accordingly dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Kalavagunta Narasinga Rao Garu Vs. Vuppulapati Rangayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad133; (1942)2MLJ610
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner brought this suit on a promissory note and relied on two indorsements to save limitation. The first was:On the 3rd of Chitra Suddba of the year Bhava the amount paid in cash is Rs. 10 (Rupees Ten only).With regard to a payment made a little less than three years later, the indorsement was:The amount paid on the first day of Phalguna Suddha of the year Dhatu is Rs. 2 (Two rupees).2. The defendants remained ex parte but the District Munsiff dismissed the suit on the ground that the indorsements did not save. limitation under Section 20 of the Limitation Act.3. It is not denied by the petitioner that the learned District Munsiff was right in saying that Section 20 of the Limitation Act did not save the suit from the bar of limitation; but he contends that the learned District Munsiff did not consider, as he should have done, whether these endorsements saved limitation under Section 19 of. the Limitation Act as. acknowledgments. There can be no doubt that if th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nataraja Gramani Vs. Sivakolundu Gnamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad245; (1942)2MLJ735
Wadsworth, J.1. The appeal to the District Judge against the order of the Subordinate Judge was incompetent and the appellate order has to be set aside. I am asked in revision to rectify what appears to be an erroneous decision on the limitation question by the trial Court. While I am of opinion that the procedure of the executing Court in granting an ad interim stay followed by an absolute order is not contemplated by Section 20 of Act IV of 1938 and that when once a stay has been granted limitation for an application under Section 19 will begin to run, I am not prepared to hold that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was without jurisdiction because it proceeds on a different view of the limitation question. In the result the revision petition is allowed with costs here and in the District Court and the order of the Subordinate Judge is restored....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »