Chennai Court January 1948 Judgments
In Re: Swaranath Bhatia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad427; (1948)1MLJ219
Govinda Menon, J.1. Against his conviction for having abetted the contravention of Rules 4 and 7 of the Madras Cotton Cloth and Apparel (Exports) Control Order, 1946, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 81 (iv) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules and the Sentence of fine of Rs. 300 imposed on him by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, Swaranath Bhatia, a partner in the firm of Viswanath Prem Prakash appeals to this Court and what I have to decide is how far the appellant can be charged with the liability for the crime.2. The facts are practically admitted. The appellant is one of the partners of the aforesaid firm and the second accused before the lower Court was said to be the other partner. As there was no tangible evidence to prove that he (second accused) had any connection with the Madras branch, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate discharged him under Section 253(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The partnership of Viswanath Prem Prakas...
Tag this Judgment!Kapa Kasi Viswanadham Vs. Bondili Madan Singh and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad422; (1948)1MLJ223
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. P.R.C. No. 2 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Bezwada taluk, was a prosecution against the present respondents for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to rioting, theft, criminal trespass and dacoity. After the enquiry had proceeded for some time, the Assistant Public Prosecutor Bezwada filed a memorandum dated 5th September, 1947, before the Sub-Magistrate under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code requesting that he may be permitted to withdraw the prosecution against the accused. On the receipt of this application, the learned Sub-Magistrate passed the following order:The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II, Bezwada is permitted under Section 494, Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw the prosecution in the case as per the orders of the Government and the District Magistrate, Kistna and the accused are discharged.2. As is to be inferred from this order, the District Magistrate, Kistna had forwarded to the Sub-Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Sanka Punnaiya Vs. Battu Bhadraiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad441; (1948)1MLJ394
Clark, J.1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to revise the judgment in Small Cause Suit No. 29 of 1946 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Tenali. The applicant filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 294-8-0 due on account of dealings with the respondent. In his plaint the applicant stated that the transactions had been between the defendant and a firm in which he, the applicant, was a former partner. He pleaded that that firm was dissolved in April, 1943 and that subsequently he became solely entitled to collect the outstandings of the firm on a decree of compromise arrived at in proceedings between himself and his former partner. The District Munsiff stated in his judgment that the decision of this case depended on whether or not it was found that the suit was maintainable under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. He referred to Clause (2) of that section which lays down that,No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.P. Gopal Menon (Advocate)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad525; (1948)1MLJ361
Rajamannar, O.C.J.1. This is an application by an advocate of this Court to direct an amendment of his name in the enrolment papers filed with the Bar Council, in the certificate issued to him, bearing No. 857, dated the 14th December, 1934, and also in the roll of advocates maintained by this Court. On the 13th December, 1934, the petitioner was admitted as an advocate of this Court and signed the roll as M.P. Gopal Menon. The certificate issued to him gave his full name as Machat Puthur Gopal Menon. The petitioner now wants his name to read as 'Nadumbilli Tharanallur Raman Nambudiripad son of Nadum-billi Tharanallur Parameswaran Nambudiripad of Nadumbilli Tharanallur Illom in Kizhuthany Desom, Mukundapuram taluk in Cochin State.' He has published an advertisement in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated the 25th November, 1947, of his intention to be known hereafter as above.2. Obviously this Court cannot grant his prayer in so far as it relates to the enrolment papers filed with the Ba...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Ramachandriah Setty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ21
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. Rao Bahadur P. M. Srinivasa Aiyangar contends that the lower Courts have not adverted to the crucial point in the case, namely, whether there was, in fact, any encroachment by the petitioner. There was a previous prosecution in which the petitioner was convicted foe having encroached upon a piece of land belonging to the Municipality and that conviction was confirmed. The present conviction is for refusing to demolish a structure built upon that encroached land. It is clear that the previous judgment will not operate in favour of the prosecution to show that there is an encroachment, which has to be proved by separate and independent evidence.2. In the trial Court, P. W. 1 has given prima facie evidence that the petitioner has encroached upon a piece of land belonging to the Municipality and built a structure thereon. The petitioner in his statement has denied it generally; but the evidence of D. Ws. 1 to 8 does not categorically show that the land alleged to h...
Tag this Judgment!Harichandran Pagadai Vs. Thangaswami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ778; (1948)2MLJ571
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Magistrate acquitting the respondent of offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. After the complaint was registered and the accused appeared in the Court on the 2nd May, 1947, the complainant filed a petition in Court stating that he had compromised the matter relating to the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and that with regard to the offence tinder Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act he has no witnesses to prove his complaint. The petition was adjourned to some later date and on that adjourned date the complainant resiled from his previous petition and wanted to proceed with the case. The learned Judge found that the complainant had compounded the case so far as the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was concerned, and had withdrawn the case under Section 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code so far as the offence under ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mudduleti Buggappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ440
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. I am not satisfied that the son, the second petitioner, can be con-victed of having stored for sale quantities of Bengal gram in excess of that allowed in the licence in favour of his father, the first petitioner. There is nothing to show that except in the capacity of a junior member of the family the second accused was in control of the 1,200 seers of Bengal gram seized by P.W. 2, the Commercial Tax Officer. As laid down by this Court in M. Muniswami Goundan1, where the manager of the family is the licensee, it cannot be said that any junior member of the family by engaging himself in the family trade, can be found guilty for not having a separate licence in his own name. Considering the circumstances that in the case of a joint family consisting of the father and the son as it is a common practice for the son to help the father in carrying on the business, it does not mean that the son himself is either in sole possession or stored the articles which the fam...
Tag this Judgment!H. Syed Abbas Saheb and ors. Vs. I. Syed Amir Hamiza Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ469
Govindarajachari, J.1. This appeal is against an order of remand of the District Judge of Madura. It arises out of a suit by the representatives of the branch of one Syed Ismail who was the second son of one Kadir Batcha Sahib, principally against the first defendant who is the eldest son of one Hyder Ali who was the eldest son of Kadir Batcha Sahib. The suit was for an account of the plaintiff's share of the surplus income of certain properties from the year 1922 till the date of suit and for recovery of the amount found due on such account being taken. A preliminary decree for accounts was passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Madura. On appeal the District Judge of Madura remanded the suit for a decision by the trial Court on issues 1 and 2 and issue 4 among the additional issues before the case is sent to the commissioner for taking accounts.2. It was not contended in the civil miscellaneous appeal that the direction that these issues should be first dealt with by the trial ...
Tag this Judgment!Chadalavada Satyanarayana Vs. Alladi Suryanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ116
Clark, J.1. The appellant mortgaged certain property to the respondent's lather. The mortgage was in simple form but at some time, whether at the date of the mortgage or subsequently is immaterial, the respondent's father went into possession of the mortgaged property. Thus the mortgagee was a mortgagee in possession. The appellant filed a suit for redemption in the Court of the District Munsiff of Kavali and obtained a preliminary decree on the 6th of October, 1942. The respondent's father died during the pendency of these proceedings and the respondent was joined as his legal representative. The preliminary mortgage decree for redemption followed the form prescribed in Order 34, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. The District Munsiff in granting a preliminary decree arrived at a decision as to the amount payable by the mortgagor after making due allowance for the profits of the mortgaged property received by the respondent's father or the respondent up to the date of the preliminary decre...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Abdul Halim Baig Vs. Muhammad Ali HussaIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Mad335; (1948)1MLJ264
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. By the. order made in C.M.P. No. 2689 of 1947, my learned brother, Shahabuddin, J., appointed the petitioner herein as receiver for the purpose of carrying on quarrying operations in a hillock which formed the subject-matter of the litigation between the parties on a 'seignorage' basis. Various directions were given to the receiver and he was ordered to work under the general supervision of the lower Court. Previously, by the order in C.M.P. No. 2424 of 1947, Rajamannar, J., as he then was, had directed, by consent of parties, that the appli-cant, the present petitioner, may be permitted to carry on quarrying on the suit hillock on a ' seignorage' basis; and he was also permitted to employ two watchers at a salary not exceeding Rs. 25 each per month. It is admitted that the petitioner has been carrying on the functions of a receiver. The present application by Mr. B. Lakshminarayana is, that the receiver may be allowed some remuneration for his labour in connec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »