Chennai Court March 1946 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.
In Re: T.S. Chokalingam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad390
Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. The only point for consideration in this case is whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing to pay the expenses for the defence witnesses cited in C.C. No. 400 of 1945 on the file of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras. The petitioner has been prosecuted in this case for an offence punishable under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, which is punishable with imprisonment for a period of three years or fine. The Magistrate has held that this is bailable offence and that the accused should pay the expenses of the defence witnesses and that the Court will not pay the same. He cites a decision of the Nagpur High Court under the Defence of India Rules in Ingley v. Ejmperor for the position that offences punishable under the Defence of India Rules are bailable, and states that as this is a bailable offence the accused himself should pay the expenses for the witnesses under B. 866, Criminal Rules of Practice. That rule specifically provides for the payment of ...
Sri Raja V. Sarvagnaya Kumara Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu, Rajah of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad5; (1946)2MLJ53
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The appellant is the proprietor of the zamindari of Venkatagiri, a permanently settled estate of considerable extent in the district of Nellore. Within the estate are numerous parcels of land granted as inams before the permanent settlement for various pious and charitable purposes or as remuneration for village offices in the estate. The Provincial Government, respondent herein, purported to 'enfranchise' such of these inams as were annexed to certain classes of village offices in the estate and impose quit-rents thereon payable to Government, claiming to be entitled to do so under the provisions of the Madras Proprietary Estates' Village-Service Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though the enfranchisement was 'cancelled' subsequently, the appellant, alleging that such ' ancellation ' was ultra vires, brought the suit in which this appeal arises against the Government for a declaration that he is entitled to have the peishcush or permanent assessme...
L. Balarama Reddi and ors. Vs. Govinda Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad54; (1946)2MLJ108
Happell, J.1. The question in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is whether the appellants were entitled to restitution of their property sold in execution of an ex parte decree which was subsequently set aside. The circumstances were these : In O.S. No. 596 of 1938 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Villupuram, an ex parte decree was passed against the appellants for Rs. 948 and costs. In execution of this decree, four items of property were sold for Rs. 1629, one of the items fetching Rs. 1,501 out of the total sum. Subsequently, on an application made by the appellants, the ex parte decree was set aside and thereupon the appellants filed a petition under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code for restitution of the properties sold. Before, however, this application was decided, the suit, O.S. No. 596 of 1938 had been heard on merits and a decree was passed for Rs. 798 and costs. The learned District Munsiff of Villupuram allowed the application for restitution; but on appe...
Devalraju Subbamma Vs. Devalraju Madhavarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad492; (1946)1MLJ393
1. The petitioner applied to the lower appellate Court for an amendment of the decree. The respondents, however, had filed a second appeal to this Court, which was dismissed in limine under Order 41, Rule 11. The question that arises is whether the decree to be amended is the decree of this Court in second appeal or the decree of the lower appellate Court. The lower Court dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that the application should have been made in this Court.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner, while conceding that if notice had issued in second appeal and the second appeal had been disposed of after hearing then the amendment application should have been made to this Court, argues that the dismissal of the second appeal in limine under Order 41, Rule 11 does not amount to a decree. It merely dismisses the appeal, it is said, leaving the decree of the lower appellate Court in force. In Muniswami Naidu v. Muniswami Reddi I.L.R.(1898) Mad. 293, it was held t...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chitikina Subbanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad239; (1946)1MLJ444
Sahahab-ud-din, J.1. The respondents who were accused 1, 3 and 4 in Sessions case No. 9 of 1945 in the Court of Session, West Godavari, were tried with the second accused on a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code in respect of the murder of one Arupalli Nara-simhulu. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the second accused of murder and sentenced him to death; and that conviction and sentence were confirmed and his appeal was dismissed by this Court (Referred Trial No. 156 and Cr. App. No. 552 of 1945). The learned Judge held that the respondents were not guilty of murder. He convicted the first accused of causing grievous hurt and sentenced him to five ytars' rigorous imprisonment and the other two accused of ' wrongful confinement'; sentence being one year's rigorous imprisonment each. They have not appealed but the Public Prosecutor, Madras, has filed this appeal against their acquittal on the charge of murder.2. The case for the prosecu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›