Chennai Court November 1948 Judgments
N.S. Subramanya Ayyar Vs. the Official Liquidator, Mocheri Co-operativ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ107
Mack, J.1. This petition raises a very simple question of court-fee. The point for determination is whether a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies acting under Section 57-A of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act No. VI of 1932 is a Civil Court within the meaning of Article 17(1) of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. The suit was one by a claimant to set aside an order by the Deputy Registrar dismissing his claim to some moveables attached valued at Rs. 750. If he acted as a ' Civil Court ' only a court-fee of Rs. 15 is payable. The District Munsiff held that he was not a Civil Court and directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee of Rs. 750. The District Munsiff's finding clearly cannot be upheld. He has referred to no authority. In Narayana Venkatachalamiah v. Putika Venkatiah and Ors. : AIR1942Mad24 it was held that, the Registrar was a Court within the meaning of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act although the question whether he was a Civil Court appears to h...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. A.K. Gopalaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: 1950CriLJ54
Rajagopalan, J.1. The appellant was licensed to possess and use a D. B. B. L. gun which bore the number 75710. The accused had two houses, one in which he lived and the other in which apparently he kept his gun. The gun itself ap-pear3 to have been kept in a gun case and the gun case was kept in an almyrah in the house at the rear. It was common ground that on the day the police searched the rear house it was in the possession of one Kolandavelu. What other objects were traced to the possession of Kolandavelu we are not concerned with in this case. The police found the D. B. B. L. gun in the open gun case in the almyrah with its doors closed but not looked. The only other article declared to have been found in that almyrah was M. C. 2 but whether M. 0. No. 2 belonged to Kolandavelu or to anyone else there was nothing in evidence to indicate. The learned First Class Magistrate convicted the appellant Under Section 22, Arms Act with having delivered the gun to Kolandavelu who admittedly ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : S.M. Abdul Kareem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1008
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The order which the petitioner seeks to set aside in revision purports to be a direction given by the District Magistrate to the Public Prosecutor of Tanjore to withdraw under Section 494, Criminal P.C. the prosecution launched against a Head Constable and a Constable. On the motion of the brother of petitioner and after an enquiry by two Magistrates the case against the refused, that is, the Head Constable and Constable, was taken on file by the District Magistrate himself and the case was transferred to the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore, for a preliminary enquiry. Subsequently, on the intervention of the District Superintendent of Police, the official superior of the two accused, the learned District Magistrate purported to pass the order he did on 26th November 1947 directing the withdrawal of the charges.2. The preliminary objection of the learned Public Prosecutor, that there was no judicial order to consider at this stage in revision must p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Sappa Appalaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: 1952CriLJ995
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner, a dealer in charcoal in Rajahmundry was convicted of having transported without permits 150 bags of charcoal on two occasions to P.W. 1 at Bhimavaram in contravention of the notification issued by the Government under the powers vested in them by the Defence of India Rules. The offence was punishable under Section 7 of Act XXIV of 1946.2. The evidence on record could leave one in no doubt on the question of fact, whether it was the appellant that consigned for transport these 150 bags of charcoal to be delivered to P.W. 1 at Bhimavaram, though the actual transport was to be by a public carrier, in a boat.3. Virtually the only point raised in this petition by the learned advocate for the petitioner was that it was not the petitioner that actually 'transported' the charcoal from Rajahmundry to Bhimavaram and that the consignment for transport which was all that was proved against the petitioner could not bring him within the scope of the prohibition issu...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. A.K. Gopalaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ110
Rajagopalan, J.1. The appellant was licensed to possess and use a D.B.B.L. gun which bore the number 75,710. The accused had two houses, one in which he lived and the other in which apparently he kept his gun. The gun itself appears to have been kept in a gun case and the gun case was kept in an almyrah in the house at the rear. It was common ground that on the day the police searched the rear house it was in the possession of one Kolandavelu. What other objects were traced to the possession of Kolandavelu we are not concerned with in this case. The Police found the D.B.B.L. gun in the open gun case in the almyrah with its doors closed but not locked. The only other article declared to have been found in that almyrah was M.O. 2, but whether M.O. 2 belonged to Kolandavelu or to anyone else there was nothing in evidence to indicate. The learned First Class Magistrate convicted the respondent under Section 22 of the Arms Act with having delivered the gun to Kolandavelu who admittedly had ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.M. Abdul Kareem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ388
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The order which the petitioner seeks to set aside in revision purports to be a direction given by the District Magistrate to the Public Prosecutor of Tanjore to withdraw under Section 494, Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution launched against a head constable and a constable. On the motion of the brother of petitioner and after an enquiry by two Magistrates, the case against the accused, that is, the head constable and constable, was taken on file by the District Magistrate himself and the case was transferred to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore, for a preliminary enquiry. Subsequently, on the intervention of the District Superintendent of Police, the official superior of the two accused, the learned District Magistrate purported to pass the order he did on 26th November, 1947, directing' the withdrawal of the charges.2. The preliminary objection of the learned Public Prosecutor, that there was no judicial order to consider at this stage in ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sappa Appalaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ389
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner, a dealer in charcoal in Rajahmundry, was convicted of having transported without permits 150 bags of charcoal on two occasions to P.W. 1 at Bhimavaram in contravention of the notification issued by the Government under the powers vested in them by the Defence of India Rules. The offence was punishable under Section 7 of Act XXIV of 1946.2. The evidence on record could leave one in no doubt on the question of fact, whether it was the appellant that consigned for transport these 150 bags of charcoal to be delivered to P.W. 1 at Bhimavaram, though the actual transport was to be by a public carrier, in a boat.3. Virtually the only point raised in this petition by the learned advocate for the petitioner was that it was not the petitioner that actually ' transported ' the charcoal from Rajahmundry to Bhimavaram and that the consignment for transport which was all that was proved against the petitioner could not bring him within the scope of the prohibit...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Ramachar Vs. K.S. Krishnachar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ183
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a revision against the order of the lower Court appointing a Commissioner in O.S. No. 124 of 1945. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The petitioner and the respondent are brothers. The respondent filed the above suit for a declaration that paimash Nos. 68/2 and 69 fell to his share in a partition that was effected between the brothers and for mesne profits. The petitioner fifed an application for the appointment of a Commissioner. The District Munsiff appointed a Commissioner who submitted the report and both the parties filed their objections to the report. The suit was dismissed and the plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal. In appeal the suit was remanded to the trial Court mainly on the ground that the District Munsiff erred in not admitting certain revenue accounts. After remand the respondent filed another petition, I.A. No. 289 of 1947 for the appointment of a Commissioner. The main ground alleged in the affidavit was that the Commissioner a...
Tag this Judgment!Kodi Makku Naicker and anr. Vs. Agathiappa Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ147
Horwill, J.1. The petitioners were defendants 6 and 15 in the suit and they were declared ex parte by an order dated 13th February, 1947. The contesting defendants 1 to 3 filed written statements on 14th March, 1947, and issues were framed on 9th April, 1947. On 16th September, 1947, the petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. That application was dismissed on 8th October, 1947. They then sought to file a written statement by an application of 13th'Novcmber, 1947; but by an order of even date that application was dismissed. In this revision petition against that order, it is contended that the learned District Munsiff was bound to grant the petitioners permission to file a written statement; for such was their legal right. The petition was admitted and posted before this Bench for considering the question whether the petitioners had the legal right claimed by them.2. If the petitioners had been successful in their application to set aside the ex parte order, t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Medisetti Benniah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1948
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ385
ORDER1. The same question arises for consideration in both these petitions. The petitioner was the village munsif of Pakalapadu. He was certainly not granted any licence; nor was he registered as a retail dealer of kerosene within the meaning of Rule 12 of the Madras Kerosene Control Order, 1945. C.W. 1 was the registered dealer for the supply of kerosene to the residents of the village of which the petitioner was the village munsif. The facts proved were that it was the practice in the villages to which C.W. 1 was expected to supply kerosene, for C.W. 1 to issue kerosene to the village munsifs ; and the village munsifs paid for the kerosene they took from C.W. 1. The village munsifs then distributed the kerosene to the individual villagers. On 18th December, 1946, C.W. 1 handed over to the petitioner seven tins of white kerosene and one tin of yellow kerosene. Under the orders promulgated by the District Magistrate, originally under Section 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules, he fixe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »