Chennai Court July 1948 Judgments
In Re: Periaswami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ411
Govinda Menon, J.1. Agreeing with the majority verdict of 3 to 2 of the jury the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly division at Tuticorin, convicted the appellant of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Having carefully gone through the learned Judge's charge to the jury, the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Public Prosecutor and myself were not able to find any circumstance vitiating the charge. The learned Judge has clearly and concisely put before the jury the law on the point and explained to them the sections of the Penal Code which have application to the case. Then the learned Judge analysed the evidence of the witnesses, brought out the salient points for and against the prosecution and left, as he ought to do, the final decision to the jury. On a reading of the charge it would seem that if he were trying the case himself without a jury but with the aid of ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Narayanaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ405
ORDER.Whereas I have reasonable cause to believe Jack Periz-weig alias Robert Liversidge to be a person of hostile associations and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him: Now, therefore, I, in pursuance of the power conferred on me by Reg. 18B, Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, hereby make the following order: I direct that the abovementioned Jacts Perizweig alias Robert Liversidge be detained.(Signed) John Anderson,One of His Majesty's PrincipalSecretaries of State.Beyond the production of this order, the Secretary of State who made the order did not make an affidavit in the action. It was contended inter alia, that the mere production of an order signed by the Secretary of State was not a sufficient prima facie defence and the onus lay on the respondent to give evidence at the trial to prove that Sir John Anderson had reasonable grounds for the belief recited in the order. Via-count Maugham sums up his conclusion thus:The result is that there is no pr...
Tag this Judgment!G. Narayanaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ1
ORDER.Whereas I have reasonable cause to believe Jack Perlzweig alias Robert Liversidge to be a person of hostile associations and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him : Now, therefore, I, in pursuance of the power conferred on me by Regulation 18-B of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, hereby make the following order : I direct that the above mentioned Jack Perlzweig alias Robert Liversidge be detained.(Signed) John Anderson,One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.Beyond the production of this order, the Secretary of State who made the order did not make an affidavit in the action. It was contended inter alia that the mere production of an order signed by the Secretary of State was not a sufficient prima facie defence and the onus lay on the respondent to give evidence at the trial to prove that Sir John Anderson had reasonable grounds for the belief recited in the order. Viscount Maugham sums up his conclusion thus:The result is that t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. Unnamalai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ404
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order of the District Judge of Vellore, dated the 5th March, 1946, remanding the suit for fresh disposal on two further issues framed with permission to the District Munsiff to admit fresh evidence at his discretion. The entire records which have been called for to clear up some doubtful points show that the suit was dismissed on 3rd July, 1946, after a fresh hearing in compliance with the remand order, and at that fresh hearing the appellant who appeared through an advocate took the suit to a conclusion on the basis of the remand order without in any way objecting to it. The plaintiff filed this civil miscellaneous appeal against the order of remand on 4th September,1946, i.e., nearly two months after the final disposal of the suit. He has also filed an appeal before the District Judge against the ultimate dismissal of his suit.2. Without going into the merits I think that a preliminary objection taken to the maintainability of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsana Venkatacharyulu and ors. Vs. Sri Venugopalaswami Varu, Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ570
Mack, J.1. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge is in accordance with existing practice and is correct. An objection to his pecuniary jurisdiction need not be determined before permission to sue in forma pauperis is granted. It does not come within the scope of Order 33, Rule (5) of the Civil Procedure Code as one of the grounds on which an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis may be rejected. The petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 35....
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Bondada Ramalingeswaraswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ326; (1948)2MLJ351
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal of the respondent who had been convicted by the trial Court of an offence underSection 7, Sub-section (2) of the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance, which conviction was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that at the time the prosecution was launched Section 7 of the Ordinance had been repealed and therefore there was no jurisdiction for the Courts to entertain the case.2. The only question argued by the learned Public Prosecutor is one of law, namely, that the repeal of Section 7 will not take away the right which the Crown has to initiate prosecutions for an offence committed when Section 7 was in forces. For this argument reliance is placed on Section 6, Sub-clause (e) of the General Clauses Act, as well as on a decision of this Court in Chokkalingam In re : (1945)2MLJ295 . Mr. Chandrasekhara Sastri for the respondent contends that even if Section 6 (e) is applicable a different intention appears from the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Periaswami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ523
Govinda Menon, J.1. Agreeing with the majority verdict of 3 to 2 of the jury, the learned Assiatant Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly Division at Tutioorin, convicted the appellant of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 397, Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Having carefully gone through the learned Judge's charge to the jury, the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Public Prosecutor and myself were not able to find any oiroumstance vitiating the charge, The learned Judge has clearly and concisely put before the jury the law on the point and explained to them the sections of the Penal Code which have application to the case. Then the learned Judge analysed the evidence of the witnesses, brought out the salient points for and against the pro-execution and left, as he ought to do, the final decision to the jury. On a reading of the charge it would seem that if he were trying the case himself without a jury but with the aid of asse...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Berankutty Haji Vs. C.i. Raman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ223; (1948)2MLJ257
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner's case, which has been accepted by three Courts, is that the respondents, a party of five men, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed on the petitioner's land, and took away a thousand cocoanuts. After being convicted by the Sub-Magistrate, they at once appealed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Calicut. That appeal was dismissed; and they at once filed Crl. R.C. No. 391 of 1947 in this Court. That petition was dismissed on the 25th February, 1948; and within one month of the order of this Court dismissing the revision case this petition has been filed, praying than an order be passed under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the restoration of possession of the property to the petitioner.2. It is argued by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and by the learned' advocate for the accused that the trespass was not attended by criminal force or show of force and that therefore Section 522 is not applicable. There is ev...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Janakumara Nainar Vs. Periaswamy Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ368
Rajagopalan, J.1. E.P. No. 40 of 1945, which the appellant decree-holder filed, was the last he could file within the period of 12 years the law allowed him. The application was filed on the 24th September 1945. The appellant was directed to furnish the sale papers. Time was extended periodically, and on the 31st October, 1945, he applied for a further three weeks. The order of the Court ran,Time extended finally 2nd November, 1945.The sale papers were not filed on the 2nd November, 1945, and on that day the learned District Munsiff dismissed the application for execution. That order was confirmed on appeal to the learned District Judge of North Arcot.2. The main contention in second appeal was not one that was presented for the consideration of either the trial Court or the lower appellate Court. The learned advocate for the appellant contended, that, as the learned District Munsiff had granted to the decree-holder on his application dated the 31st October, 1945, time till the 2nd Nov...
Tag this Judgment!Pedapudi Nookaratnam Vs. Pedapudi Venkata Suryanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ372
Rajagopalan, J.1. Neither the decree under execution nor the application for its execution prior to E.P. No. 546 of 1945 are before me, and I have to gather the contents of these documents from what has been set out in the judgment of the lower appellate Court.2. The operative portion of the decree in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent-decree-holder against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights was apparently:The Court having directed (by an order dated 12th March, 1943), the plaintiff to give an undertaking within tree days that he should reside with his wife, the third defendant, away from his parents for about a month, failing which the suit will stand dismissed with costs and further holding that if the plaintiff gives the undertaking, there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights.... The plaintiff having given the necessary undertaking on this date, the Court doth order and decree that the third defendant do go to the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »