Chennai Court October 1948 Judgments
Public Prosecutor Vs. Illur Thippayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ641
Subba Rao, J.1.These are appeals by the Pub-lie Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accua-ed in all the cases. The accused in all the appeals were charged under Sections 7 and 8, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946, for having contravened the various orders passed by the Government. The following tabular statement shows the orders contravened by the ao- cused in the various cases:Accused in C.A. No. 629 of 1947: G.O. No. Ms.1026 Food dated 19th Novem ber 1946.Accused in C.A. No. 23 of 1948 : do.Accused in C.A. No. 631 of 1947: B.P. No. 626Dated 15th May1946.Accused in C.A. No. 632 of 1947: do.Accused in C.A. No. 663 of 1948: do.Accused in C.A. No. 22 of 1948 : do.Accused in C.A. No. 633 of 1947: Clause 4 (1) ofThe Madras Cloth(Dealers)Control,1946.The First Court Convicted all the accused but in appeal the conviction were set Mainly on the ground that there was no proof of the orders or their due publication. The Public Prosecutor contended that the proof of the said fac...
Tag this Judgment!Vyja Eswaramma Vs. Dappili Chinna Kota Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ623
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The short point for determination in this petition is whether the lower Court erred in law in not determining the question of pecuniary jurisdiction, and of its competency to entertain the suit pecuniarily, before it decided the question of the pauperism of the petitioner. I am of opinion that it did err in law. When the respondents raised the objection that the suit, which was one for partition and recovery of the plaintiff's alleged two-fifths share, was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, it was the bounden duty of the lower Court to get rid of that objection, by deciding that the suit was within its pecuniary jurisdiction, before proceeding to consider the question of pauperism, both on general principles and the question of convenience of parties. The learned Counsel for the respondents, who had raised the question of want of pecuniary jurisdiction before the lower Court, now wants to support the lower Court's postponement of its finding regard...
Tag this Judgment!Abdurahiman Settu Vs. Muhammad Kasam Settu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ652
Mack, J.1. The Subordinate Judge dismissed an application by the plaintiff-petitioner for payment of Rs. 1000 (Rupees one thousand) by the first defendant to defray the expenses in a commission to examine witnesses in various places ordered to be taken out at the instance of the first defendant. The Subordinate Judge was doubtful whether he could order such costs under Order 26, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. The ' expenses of the commission ' can be made to include expenses of the other parties to the litigation and can in suitable cases be ordered to be deposited by the party at whose instance the commission was taken out. The Subordinate Judge however expressed his view that this was not a fit case in which any such deposit should be ordered. Plaintiff's expenses incurred in the commission will of course be considered at the time of judgment when the value of the evidence obtained by this commission can be fully assessed. Petition is dismissed but in the circumstances without ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmalinga Chetti Vs. A.M. Krishnaswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ644
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only point for determination in this petition is whether the lower Court erred in law by failing to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by refusing to grant the amendment prayed for by the petitioner in his written statement. In his original written statement in the suit, which had been filed against him regarding four survey numbers, he had contended that he had got all the four survey numbers on transfer of their patta from the original owner of those numbers, Ellammal, in 1944, and had been in possession of all the survey numbers since then, paying the tax, and that the suit should be dismissed. Issues were framed on that footing. Later on, he put in an amendment petition for amending his written statement by pleading that items 1 and 2 of the plaint property had been sold to him orally by Ellammal in 1923 itself, and that he had been delivered possession thereof and had perfected his title thereto, and that he had been given items 3 and 4 only in 1944 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Illur Thippayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ649
Subba Rao, J.1. These are appeals by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accused in all the cases. The accused in all the appeals were charged under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946 for having contravened the various orders passed by the Government. The following tabular statement shows the orders contravened by the Accused in the various cases:Accused in C.A. No. 629 of 1947 G.O. Ms. 1026 Food dated 19th November, 1946.Accused in C.A. No. 23 of 1948 Do.Accused in C.A. No. 631 of 1947 B.P. No. 626 dated 15th May, 1946.Accused in C.A. No. 632 of 1947. Do.Accused in C.A. No. 663 of 1947. Do.Accused in C.A. No. 22 of 1948. Do.Accused in C.A. No. 633 of 1947. Clause 4 (1) of the Madras Cloth (Dealers) Control Order, 1946The first Court convicted all the accused but in appeal the convictions were set aside mainly on the ground that there was no proof of the orders or their due publication. The Public Prosecutor contended that the proof of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Akkirayu Sanyasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad13
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner, was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Anakapalle of an offence under Section 498, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction was upheld in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Vizagapatam, who reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 200 out of which a sum of Rs. 100 was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation.2. Mr. Venkatesam appearing for the petitioner has raised two points in support of his application, The first of them is that from the evidence it can be discerned that the wife of the complainant who, it is alleged, had been taken away or enticed by the petitioner, had already been discarded by the complainant sometime ago, and therefore if she had gone and lived with the petitioner as his wife either as a result of inducement or request made by the petitioner or of her own free will and volition which were aided by the petitioner, it cannot be said that an offence unde...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramaswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ581
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1.The petitioner was convicted by the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Madura Town, of an offence under Section 417 read with S, 511, Penal Code, and directed to be released under 8.562 (l), Criminal P. C, on his own bond for Es. 500 to appear and receive sentence within the period of one year and in the meantime to be of good behaviour, On appeal, the City First Class Magistrate, Madura, found that the offence committed on the facts and circumstances placed before the Court was, not one of attempt to cheat but would amount to an offence under Section 471, Penal Code. viz., using as genuine a forged document. On this finding, the appellate Court holding that the trial Court was not competent to try the offence under Section 471, Penal Code, ordered that he should be retried by the appellate Court itself, as a First Class Magistrate and it is this order that is now sought to be revised at the instance o the accused-petitioner.2. The first point argued by Mr. Meenakshi-...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Venkataraman Vs. the Commissioner of Police and Superintendent Ce ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ881
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. O. The petitioner is an advocate of this Court. On 1st April 1948 the Com-missioner of Police passed an Order of detention under 8. 2 (l) (a), Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act (Act i [l] of 1947), He was duly authorised by the Provincial Government to exercise its powers under Section 2 (l) of the said Act. In the detention Order it is stated that the petitioner is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order and that with a view to. preventing him from so doing, it is necessary to detain him. The Commissioner of Police communicated the said Order to the Government under B. S (2) on 9th June 1948. On 11th September 1948 the Government served the grounds of detention on the petitioner. Though the Order of detention was passed on 1st April 1948, the peti tioner was arrested only on 17th August 1948 as presumably his whereabouts were not known till that date.2. Mr. A. K. Pillai learned Counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Sanivarapu Venkata Reddi and ors. Vs. Nimmakayala Alias Nagella Lakshm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ68
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The facts, are briefly these: The respondent in this petition filed O.S. No. 122 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Nandyal, praying for a declaration that the rastha marked XY in the plaint plan was a public rastha and for an injunction restraining the petitioners, the defendants in the suit, from obstructing him and his men in going through the public rastha to the fields, Survey Nos. 194, 195 and 192/3, and taking manure carts through the public rastha to the said fields, and, in the alternative, for establishment of his right of easement of necessity to go through the rastha to the abovesaid fields through the rastha and for an injunction against the defendants. He filed a plan with the plaint. The defendants too filed a plan, Ex. D. 1. The District Munsiff, Nandyal, by his judgment dated 22nd November, 1944, dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff seems to have applied for a local inspection and the learned District Munsiff seems to ...
Tag this Judgment!M. R. Venkataraman Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ90
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner is an advocate of this Court. On the 1st April, 1948, the Commissioner of Police passed an order of detention under Section 2(1)(a) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act (Act I of 1947). He was duly authorised by the Provincial Government to exercise its powers under Section 2(1) of the said Act. In the detention order it is stated that the petitioner is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that with a view to preventing him from so doing, it is necessary to detain him. The Commissioner of Police communicated the said order to the Government under Section 2(2) on the 9th June, 1948. On the 11th September, 1948, the Government served the grounds of detention on the petitioner. Though the order of detention was passed on 1st April, 1948, the petitioner was arrested only on 17th August, 1948, as presumably his whereabouts were not known till that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »