Chennai Court August 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.
The Panchayat Board, Sivaganga Through Its President Vs. A.R. Veerabad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad84; (1942)2MLJ712
Byers, J.1. This appeal arises out of the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in favour of the plaintiff that the proceedings in respect of his assessment to profession tax were irregular and that he was entitled to a refund of the amount claimed. The plaintiff's case was that after he had been assessed to profession tax by the Panchayat Board of Sivaganga, he produced his income-tax demand for the year comprising the half year in question under the Explanation to rule 11-A of the Fourth Schedule of the Madras Local Boards Act. At the same time he preferred an appeal but the appellate tribunal declined to accept the figures given in his income-tax papers and dismissed his appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the procedure was irregular and consequently Section 228 of the Act gave no protection to the panchayat board. He found that the appeal committee was bound to accept the figures given in the income-tax papers and he decreed the suit accordingly. It is against...
J. Bashyam Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad90; (1942)2MLJ684
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the owner of a house known as 28, Krishnappa Mudali Street, Madras. The Commissioner of the Madras Corporation served a notice upon him requiring him to provide a flush-out latrine for the use of the persons living on the premises. Section 186 of the City Municipal Act says that the Commissioner may require the owner or occupier within such time and in accordance with such directions as may be specified to provide a flush-out latrine or alter or remove from an unsuitable to a more suitable place any existing latrine. In accordance with the usual practice this notice was accompanied by an offer from the Corporation to carry out the work on behalf of the occupier provided that he agreed to pay the costs. A plan of the new latrine which was required also accompanied the notice. The appellant accepted the offer of the Corporation to do the work and paid the required initial deposit of Rs. 12. The contract was reduced to writing and signed ...
The South Indian Railway Company, Limited, by Its Agent at Trichinopol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad334; (1942)2MLJ803
King, J.1. The appellant here is the South Indian Railway Company against whom a decree had been passed in O.S. No. 14 of 1935 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of South Malabar. The company, filed an appeal in the High Court and applied for stay of execution. It was ordered by this Court to deposit the amount of the decree. This was done on 16th February, 1938, and an order granting interim stay was passed. This order was confirmed on the 22nd April, 1938, and the respondent was permitted to withdraw unconditionally the amount of the deposit which represented the costs awarded by the decree. In respect of the remainder of the sum the Court ordered that withdrawal could take place only on furnishing security. The amount of costs was accordingly withdrawn some months later, but no security was ever furnished and it was not until the appeal of the Railway Company had been dismissed that the respondent applied for the decree money. Application was made for that sum with interes...
In Re: G.N. Chakrapany Chetty and Sons by Its Managing Member G.N. Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ550
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the accused, who used a car for transporting large quantities of contraband opium and ganja. The Magistrate confiscated not only the drugs found in the car but the car itself. The petitioner objected; but his objections were overruled with the remark that it was open to Messrs. Chakrapani Chetty and Sons' (Petitioner) to seek his remedy under the hire-purchase agreement in a Civil Court.2. I doubt very much whether Messrs. Chakrapani Chetty and Sons would have any remedy against the Government in a Civil Court under their hire-purchase agreement. The Magistrate has a discretion under Section 11 of the Opium Act to confiscate any conveyance used in carrying contraband opium; and I do not think that the exercise of that discretion could be called in question in a Civil Court. That could be done only by the Courts which have appellate or revisionary jurisdiction over the Magistrate. If the petitioner's case is t...
In Re: Kondepu China Rangiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad170; (1942)2MLJ615
ORDERHorwill, J.1. An amin of Bezwada, where a Subordinate Judge's Court and a District Munsiff 's Court are situated, was executing a decree of the District Munsiff's Court, when the petitioner is said to have carried away the property which the amin had attached and in other ways obstructed him. The amin reported the matter when he returned; and the District Munsiff whose decree he was executing thereupon filed a complaint in the local First Class Magistrate's Court; and he transferred it to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate who is now trying the petitioner on charges under Sections 183 and 186 Indian Penal Code.2. The point taken in this revision application is that the com-plaint was not filed by a duly authorised person. When a public servant is obstructed in the exercise of his duties he himself can complain or any person to whom he is subordinate. In a general way amins are of course subordinate to District Munsiffs; but in this particular case the Nazarat at Bezwada was under the c...
Ramaswamy Goundar and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad59; (1942)2MLJ595
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants are the landholders of the Piranthakam Mitta in the Salem district. They filed the suit out of which this appeal arises to establish the right which they claim to cultivate the bed of the tank in the Piranthakam village when the tank becomes dry in the hot weather. The respondents who are ryots deny that the appellants possess this right and their plea has been accepted by the Subordinate Judge. The appeal is from the decree of the trial Court dismissing the appellants' suit.2. In 1937 the respondents applied to the Deputy Collector under the provisions of Section 20 of the Madras Estates Land Act, for an order declaring that they possessed the following rights : (1) to graze their cattle on the land forming the bed of the tank; (2) to cut for the purpose of fuel shrubs growing there; and (3) to remove silt. They also asked for an order restraining the appellants from cultivating the land. The Deputy Collector held that the respondents h...
Yarlagadda Rattayya Vs. Modumudi Co-operative Credit Society Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad231; (1942)2MLJ603
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant and the appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that it is not open to defendants 1 and 3 to take out execution proceedings against the property described in the plaint and claimed by the plaintiff as his own. The properties in question and another item of property were originally mortgaged to the 1st defendant Co-operative Society by the 2nd defendant. Subsequently there was a sale in respect of the properties comprised in the suit to the plaintiff-appellant without disclosing the prior mortgage and as if there were no incumbrances in the property. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bezwada acting as a Sale Officer, in execution of the award passed in respect of the mortgage ordered the sale of a property which was not mortgaged and which did not belong to the 2nd defendant. Money was realised by the sale and out of the sale proceeds the Co-operative Society was paid the amount due to it under the award. The bala...
In Re: Mohamed Meera Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad207; (1942)2MLJ710
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners and others were charged with rioting and with committing a number of offences in the course of the rioting. The primary object of the rioting was to secure the release of a person who had been arrested.2. During the course of the rioting one of the petitioners is said to have committed the theft of a purse. It is therefore argued that since the theft of a purse was not one of the common objects of the assembly and was committed by one only of the accused without the assistance or abetment of any of the others, this charge of theft could not properly be joined to the other charges. Section 239 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code however permits all persons being tried together for different offences committed in the course of the same transaction; and although it is probably true that the theft was not one of the common objects of the assembly, it certainly was committed during the course of the transaction in which all the other offences were committed...
V.E.A. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Valliammai Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad398(2); (1943)1MLJ95
Mockett, J.1. This is an appeal against an order in execution made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. The decree-holder is the appellant. The relevant dates and facts are as follows:2. On the 3rd of November, 1934, the appellant obtained a decree against defendants 1 and 2 as the legal representatives of the estate of the defendants in the suit.3. On the 19th of December, 1934, the appellant filed E. P. No. 418 of 1934 in which he asked for the following relief:By directing the garnishees to pay the amount into Court and in default of such payments to sell the said debts or to appoint a receiver to collect the same and credit the same to the plaintiff in respect of the decree amount with interests and costs.An interim order for attachment was made and on the 21st of January, 1935, the Court made the following order on the petition:Rule absolute. Petition is recorded.The property, the subject of this execution petition was ' an amount in deposit in L. S. T. S. P. Shop at Ti...
Pachayappa Udayan Vs. Ponna Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad402; (1943)1MLJ259
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. This petition was admitted because the learned Magistrate in considering ah application made before him under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, did not give very clear findings.2. The question that fell for his consideration was this : who was in possession on the date of his preliminary order, which was the 13th November, 1941, In paragraph 5 of his order, in which he sums up his findings, he mixes up questions of title and possession instead of confining himself to the relevant question above framed. In some sentences he seems to give a definite finding that D. W. 1 was in possession and even seems to express an opinion that he was always in possession except for a very short time. On the other hand, there are other sentences in this paragraph which have given room for the argument that the Magistrate had lost sight of the only point that he had to consider. He said for example,P. W. 1 has not taken delivery of possession of the land from P. Ws. 3 and 4 legall...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »