Chennai Court October 1943 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.
Kampasari Vs. Puttappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad168; (1943)2MLJ644
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the complainant in Bench Case No. 6 of 1943 on the file of the Bench Court of Kollegal. The two accused there were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 each for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Kollegal acquitted the accused, and it its this order of acquittal that is sought to be revised.2. The case for the prosecution was that on the date of occurrence P.W. 5 along with others who were playing in the street raised a cloud of dust and the second accused who was passing along scolded the boy P.W. 5 and gave him a slap. His father who was sitting on a pial witnessed it, came and remonstrated. P.W. 1 and the second accused quarrelled with each other. Just then the first accused, the father of the second accused, and others came and there was an exchange of abusive language between P.W. 1 and the second accused and it is stated for the prosecution that the...
In Re: P. Koyatti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad529
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Collector of Malabar dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Island Inspecting Officer of Malabar under Section 10C of the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy Regulation, 1 of 1912, directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 200 to be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of the order. The petitioner is a resident of Minicoy. An enquiry was made against him and three others on information received that they were likely to create a breach of the peace and cause disturbance in the Island. Under section 10C:Whenever, after such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Inspecting Officer or the Collector or any of the Collector's assistants empowered under Sub-section (1) of Section 10A is satisfied that any person in the islands,(a) is a habitual offender, or(b) is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, or(c) is so desperate and dangerous as to r...
In Re: Karani Alias Asan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad183; (1943)2MLJ674
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 26 of 1943 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate of Ambasamudram. The first accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 332 and the second accused for an offence punishable under section 379, Indian Penal Code.2. The case against them was that P.W. 1 the talayari of Iyan Pittalpudur, went to the village for demanding and collecting kist, under the directions of his villagemunsiff. The first accused asked P.W. 1 whether he was 'still collecting kist for an unjust Government, even though that Government has perished.' P.W. 1 asked him not to interfere with his kist collection work. Thereupon the first accused abused him and beat him on his left shoulder and they were pushing each other when the second accused came and stole the purse containing Rs. 8-2-0 out of which Rs. 8 was the kist collected that morning. A number of witnesses to the occurrence have been examined and they ha...
Edupuganti Pitchayya and ors. Vs. Gonuguntla Venkata Ranga Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad243
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants executed a mortgage on 27th September 1930 in favour of the respondent in respect of a cash advance of Rs. 2500. The contract stipulated for nine yearly payments, each of a sum of Rs. 537-8-0. It did not state how this annual instalment was made up. It also stipulated that if any instalment was overdue, it would carry compound interest with annual rests at Re. 1-9-0 per cent. per mensem. The appellants applied to the lower Court under the rules framed under Madras Act 4 of 1938 for a declaration of the amount due. The lower Court has come to the conclusion that by the terms of this contract no interest was payable except under the default clause and that the whole of the sum repayable in instalments, namely, Rs. 4837-8-0 was the principal and no portion of it was liable to be cancelled under Act 4 of 1938. I am unable to agree with this view. It is true that the. contract does not in terms say that each instalment shall represent so much interest and so m...
Chinnasami Battar Vs. M.L. Ramaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad153; (1943)2MLJ653
Somayya, J.1. The defendant-appellant pleads non-liability for interest in respect of the sums found due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant were co-owners. The defendant as a resident of the village was allowed to collect the rents 0 etc., due from the ryots, to pay the poruppu or jodi due to the Government, to incur various expenses relating to the collection and to pay the plaintiff his share of the income. A preliminary decree was passed, accounts were taken, various disputes were settled and the amount finally arrived at was Rs. 578-1-4 available for the plaintiff's share. The lower Courts have granted interest from the dates of the collections on the above sum due to the plaintiff's share. In doing so, the lower appellate Court has relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Jalil v. Mohamed Abdul Salam : AIR1932All505 . That decision has been considered by this Court in Yasobadra Nainar v. Samanthabadran (1935) 70 M.L.J. 311 : I.L.R. Mad. 154. As Ston...
Kalidindi Venkataramaraju Vs. Penumatcha Rajagopala Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad173; (1943)2MLJ641
Byers, J.1. This unfortunate matrimonial litigation would have ended in August 1942, if only the parties' advisers and the learned Subordinate Judge had understood the effect of the parties' renewal of cohabitation. On 7th August, 1642-when the appeals came on for hearing, the wife was reported to be willing to join' her husband and eventually they went away together the same day. There were adjournments on 14th August and 29th August, and on neither of these days did the wife appear, but in order that the appeals might be disposed of as compromised; the learned Subordinate Judge considered it necessary that the wife should either appear and consent to the withdrawal on that she should send a letter through her husband to this effect. The burden of seeing that this was done was placed on the husband The wife did not again appear but on 31st August both the vakils reported that the couple were on affectionate terms, both of them having had conversations with their respective clients. Th...
V. Vr. N. Vr. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. Ramanatha Ganapadigal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad208; (1943)2MLJ677
Horwill, J.1. In the suit out of which this second appeal arises the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the property which he sought to attach belonged to his judgment-debtor, the second defendant, and not to his sister's son, the first defendant, in whose grandfather's favour he had executed a sale deed on the 9th January, 1912. Both the lower Courts found that the transaction of the 9th January, 1912, was a sham and nominal one and that the property continued to belong to the plaintiff's judgment-debtor, the second defendant, down to the date of the attachment. As this is a finding of fact it has not been canvassed in this Court.2. Two arguments have been put forward on behalf of the appellant, the first defendant. The first is that as the second defendant could not question the right of the first defendant in a transaction to which they were both parties and in which they had jointly committed fraud, the position of the plaintiff could not be any better, because he claimed throug...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Ahmad Badsha Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ530
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a merchant dealing in hides and he carries on his business in the City of Madras. In the year 1938 one Nawab C. Abdul Hakim died, leaving a large estate. Disputes arose among the heirs with regard to the division of the properties left by the Nawab. The result was that the heirs chose five gentlemen of the same community to act as arbitrators and assist in the distribution of the assets. The assessee was one of the five gentlemen, who have been referred to in these proceedings as 'the arbitrators.' The arbitrators did a considerable amount of work in connection with the administration of the estate, and when at a later stage there were proceedings in this Court in regard to the partition, Gentle, J., decided that a sum of Rs. 87,000 (arrived at on a percentage basis) should be divided among the five arbitrators. The assessee's share came to Rs. 17,400. It was not possible to pay to the arbitrators the full amount at once and they receiv...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Ahmed Badsha Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad63
Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a merchant dealing in hides and he carries on his business in the City of Madras. In the year 1938, one Nawab C. Abdul Hakim died, leaving a large estate. Disputes arose among the heirs with regard to the division of the properties left by the Nawab. The result was that the heirs chose five gentlemen of the same community to act as arbitrators and assist in the distribution of the assets. The assessee was one of the five gentlemen, who have been referred to in these proceedings as 'the arbitrators.' The arbitrators did a considerable amount of work in connexion with the administration of the estate, and when at a later stage there were proceedings in this Court in regard to the partition Gentle J. decided that a sum of Rs. 87,000 (arrived at on a percentage basis) should be divided among the five arbitrators. The assessee's share came to Rs. 17,400. It was not possible to pay to the arbitrators the full amount at once and they received their shares in inst...
M.M. Abdul Khader Vs. Azeeza Bee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad227
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M. P. No. 102 of 1943 on the file of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras, filed by his wife for recovering maintenance from him. The case of the petitioner before the lower Court was that she was the lawfully wedded wife of the counter-petitioner, that they were living as husband and wife for two and a half years and that her husband has neglected and failed to maintain her and that she was entitled to be maintained by him. His plea was that she had been divorced by him. There was a thalaknama executed in the presence of a khazi attested by two witnesses. The, Magistrate found that it was not a valid divorce because it had not been communicated to the wife. It was pointed out even in the very ruling relied on by him, namely, Kathuyumma v. Urathel Marakkar : AIR1931Mad647 that there could be a valid thalak in the absence of the wife but it would come into operation only from the date on which the wife comes to k...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »