Chennai Court January 1945 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 Public Prosecutor Vs. Narayana Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad192; (1945)1MLJ273
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Provincial Government to challenge the view taken by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Anantapur that a mere notification of prohibition of transport of grain in the District Gazette was not enough but that knowledge of the prohibition must be brought home to the accused by publication of the order in the village or the locality by beating of tomtom or by other means. The First Class Magistrate is, in my opinion, wrong when he states that before there could be a conviction for violation of the prohibitory order, knowledge on the part of the accused should be shown in any particular manner, Though it may be that the District Gazette or the Fort St. George Gazette is rarely read by people of this class, still statutes often prescribe or provide that such publication is enough notice and it is not open to persons who violate the law to plead ignorance.2. The real point which can be urged on behalf of the respondents is this, na...
Kosuri Gopalarayadu Vs. Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad325; (1945)1MLJ284
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant was the sixth respondent judgment-debtor under the decree of the Privy Council in Privy Council Case No. 55 of 1916 and the appeal arises out of the objection raised by him that E.P. No. 174 of 1936 filed in the District Munsiff's Court, Gudivada, in execution of that decree is barred by limitation. The decree of the Privy Council was passed on 5th July, 1918. It was a decree for costs against various persons one of whom was the present appellant who was at the time of the institution of the suit a minor represented by his guardian, his natural father. The petition was filed on 17th June, 1936, that is more than 12 years after the date of the decree. But what was stated was that there was a revivor by the proceedings in E.P. No. 194 of 1928 filed within 12 years from the date of the decree. It is stated that the appellant was made a party to those proceedings and execution was sought to be had as against him, that notice was sent to him represented ...
S.A. Balagurumurthi Chettiar Vs. O.C. Muhammad Ismail and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad238; (1945)1MLJ320
Byers, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul to levy poundage on the sale of property under the following circumstances.2. The suit was brought to recover damages for a breach of contract by the defendants to purchase piece goods from the plaintiff on the allegation that the defendants refused to accept delivery and pay for the goods. After the issue of the Cloth Control Order the plaintiff filed an application for the sale of the goods through the Court and for this purpose he brought them into Court. No objection was offered and a member of the local bar was appointed to sell the property in the precincts of the Court. This was done and when the plaintiff applied to withdraw the proceeds of the sale, the learned Subordinate Judge held that poundage must first be deducted.3. The levy of poundage is provided for by the rules framed by the High Court under Section 20 of the Co...
S. Marimuthu Pillai of Murugur Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad307; (1945)1MLJ352
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This reference arises out of an assessment made upon one Marimuthu Pillai as the manager of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his undivided brother for the year 1940-41,2. It is common ground that the family (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) was ' resident ' in British India within the meaning of Section 4-A (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, but the assessee was also treated as ' not ordinarily resident ' in British India within the meaning of Section 4-B of that Act. The question whether the assessee was not ordinarily resident in British India became material in connection with the assessment of the income of cer|ain tea estates owned in Ceylon. If the assessee was also ' ordinarily resident ' in British India, such income would be assessable to tax in British India, irrespective of whether or not it was received in or brought into British India. The income-tax authorities assessed the income on that footing rejecting the contention that ...
Kanagala Dharma Rao and anr. Vs. Kadiyala Veeriah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad274; (1945)1MLJ423
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff claims a share in the suit property, because he and the first defendant were the reversioners of one Venkatasubbayya, whose property this was at the time when his widow Raghavamma surrendered the property to them. In appeal, this claim is resisted on the ground that the plaintiff and the first defendant, by reason of subsequent legislation, were not the reversioners because the widow was not in a position to surrender was not valid, estate, as a portion of it had been alienated. The lower appellate Court had against the appellants.2. There is nothing in the first point. If the surrender was valid at the time when it was made, then it cannot become invalid because subsequent to the surrender, legislation made some other person the nearest reversioner3. It would seems, although one cannot beuite sure what the real facts were, that the widow was that the widow was under the impression that the property said by the appellants to have been alienated did not belon...
Kothandarama Mudaly Vs. Dharmalinga Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad264; (1945)1MLJ186
Byers, J.1. The Court had no jurisdiction to order a stay under Section 6(2) of the Indian Soldiers' Litigation Act. It is clear from the wording of this section that the powers of the Court are limited to suspending the proceedings, after which it must give notice in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority and then proceed under Section 7 of the Act, under which it is necessary before ordering a stay to find that the soldier is serving under special conditions, and that a postponement is necessary in the interests of justice. Stay of proceedings does not automatically follow merely on receipt of a notice from the Collector under Section 6(1) of the Act.2. In the result, the revision is accepted the order of the lower Court is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the costs being costs in the cause....
Ponmutiyan Puthiya Veettil Kunhi Raman Vs. Kalariyatath Thazhe Veettil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad357; (1945)1MLJ336
Somayya, J.1. In this case the rent is payable wholly in paddy under the marupat Ex. P-1. It is the counter part executed by the tenant. Pattom is the lease executed by the landholder and the marupat is the counter part executed by the tenant. The only question is whether in fixing the money value of the quantity of paddy admitted to be due, the price is to be fixed at the market rate on the due dates, or whether the average rent for the previous five years under Section 51, Clause 2 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1930, is to be taken. The trial Court held that the market value can be claimed by the plaintiff and accordingly gave a decree on that basis. In appeal the District Judge held that the standard fixed under Section 51, Clause 2 should be applied. The sole question in this second appeal is which of the views is right.2. On a reading of Section 51, Clause 2, it appears to me the sub-section does not apply at all to a case where the rent is wholly payable in kind. The section says t...
In Re: Subbai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ241
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the District Magistrate of Coimbatore under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It raises a question with regard to the effect of Section 349 when there are several accused and one of them is a child or young person within the meaning of the Madras Children Act, 1920. 2. Three persons were accused before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Udumalpet with an offence punishable under Section 355 of the Indian Penal Code. The first and third accused were adults, the second accused was a boy of 14 years of age and therefore a ' young person ' within the meaning of the Children Act. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate was of the opinion that all the accused were guilty of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced each of the adults to pay a fine of Rs. 40, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. He considered that the second accused should be dealt with under the Children Act and accordin...
V. Kothandaraman Vs. V. Arumuga Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad431; (1945)1MLJ281
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He is a grandson of one Velayudha Naicker, who died on the 17th February, 1910. He sued on the Original Side of this Court for a decree declaring that he was entitled to a half share of the estate left by his grandfather under a will dated the 24th April, 1909. The suit was tried by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., who dismissed it mainly on the ground that the provisions of the will on which the plaintiff relied were invalid by reason of Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act which embodies the Indian rule against perpetuities. 2. Velayudha Naicker had four sons, Arumugam, Venkatachalam, Rajamanickam and Muthuswami. Rajamanickam died in 1924 without issue. The plaintiff is the son of Venkatachalam, who died in 1932. Velayudha Naicker had also three daughters, Papathi Ammal, Janaki Ammal and Baby Animal. Baby Ammal died in infancy and nothing further need be said with regard to her. Papathi Ammal died before the i...
In Re: Muthu Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad313; (1945)1MLJ180
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The accused was found guilty by the Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly of an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. Under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Byers, J., called upon the accused to show cause why a sentence should not be passed upon him according to law. In In re Kunhi Baud (1928) 56 M.L.J. 550, Jackson, J., had expressed the opinion that such a sentence was not in accordance with law and in In re Ramalingayya : AIR1942Mad723 , Horwill, J., had said the same. The question whether such a sentence is a sentence passed according to law has been fully argued before us and for reasons which we shall state we consider that these decisions must be overruled.2. Neither the Indian Penal Code nor the Code of Criminal Procedure directs where a sentence of imprisonment shall be served. In most of the punishment sections to be found in the Indian Penal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »