Chennai Court September 1948 Judgments
In Re: Chekka Appa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ547
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The charge against the petitioner was under Section 15 (b), General Sales Tax Act, Madras Act ix [9] of 1989, that he failed to pay the tax due from him within the time allowed.. The complaint was preferred on 4th May 1947, and the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner was anterior to the enactment of Section 16A of the Amended Act. Section 16A came into operation on 1st January 1948. It is really unnecessary to decide whether any vested right is taken away even if Section 16A is to be given retrospective effect. The offence with which the petitioner was charged jyas failure to pay the tax due under the law as it stood before the complaint was launched on 4th May 1947. The Amending Act xxv [25] of 1947 amended Section 15 (b) also, and the offence that was made punishable under the Amended-Act was failure to pay the tax assessed, not failure to pay the tax due. Quite obviously, in the absence of any specified provision in the Amending Act to mak...
Tag this Judgment!Balammal Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ72
Horwill, J.1. In July, 1942, the husband of the appellant was adjudged an insolvent; and before the end of the year the Official Assignee took possession of some timber on the ground that it belonged to the insolvent. In 1942 or earlier, the appellant claimed that the timber was hers; but on the 22nd February, 1943, despite her objections, the property was sold. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., before whom the matter came for confirmation of the sale, ordered that the sale proceeds should be held by the Official Assignee pending further orders. On the 26th March, 1943, some moveables were sold, which realised a sum of Rs. 225. On the 30th August, 1944, the Official Assignee applied for directions to distribute certain assets in his hands as belonging to the insolvent. On the 11th December, 1944, Clark, J., passed an order on these applications, He said that with regard to the houses sold it was the interest of the insolvent that had passed to the vendees, and so it was unnecessary for him to ...
Tag this Judgment!Payyavulu Kesanna Vs. Payyavulu Venkamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad16
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit filed by a widow Vengamma in forma pauperis for the recovery of maintenance, stridhanam jewels, and so on, which was referred at the request of both parties to the arbitration of one Rayala Govindappa. Vengamma who was dissatisfied with his award, filed the petition under appeal to set it aside. The learned District Judge, finding that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct, set the award aside.2. The facts are briefly these : The plaintiff, Vengamma was the widow of the brother of defendant 1, Kesanna, defendant 2 is his nephew, and defendant 8 is the plaintiff's stepson by her late husband's second wife. Her husband died in 1927, after, according to the averments in the written statement, making a will dated 1st May 1927, giving the plaintiff 40 acres of land, with which she was satisfied for 11 years, until she filed this suit in forma pauperis, for maintenance at Rs. 100 a month, arrears of maintenance for 11 years amounting...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Madiga Narasigadu Son of Peddanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ775
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. One Desappa was murdered and Certain persons were prosecuted under Section 302, Penal Code, in connection with that murder, The petitioners gave statements in that case under Section 161, Criminal P. C, in connection with the death of Desappa before the Taluk Magistrate, Dharmavaram. They stated to the effect that they had actually witnessed the assault which eventually resulted in the death of Desappa and some of them bad been asked to watch over the injured persons. Later on, in the preliminary enquiry they denied the earlier story and stated that they made the statements before the Taluk Magistrate as the police threatened them and that the statements were really made at the dictation of the police. Subsequently these witnesses were given up in the Sessions Court. The accused were tried and acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The learned Sessions Judge held on a consideration of the evidence that the prosecution failed to prove the case set up by them. D...
Tag this Judgment!Payyavulu Kesanna Vs. Payyavulu Vengamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ462
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit filed by a widow Vengamma in forma pauperis for the recovery of maintenance, stridhanam jewels, and so on, which was referred at the request of both parties to the arbitration of one Rayala Govindappa. Vengamma who was dissatisfied with his award, filed the petition under appeal to set it aside. The learned District Judge, finding that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct, set the award aside. 2. The facts are briefly these : The plaintiff, Vengamma, was the widow of the brother of the first defendant, Kesanna. Defendant 2 is his nephew, and defendant 3 is the plaintiff's step son by her late husband's second wife. Her husband died in 1927, after, according to the averments in the written statement, making a will dated 1st May, 1927, giving the plaintiff 40 acres of land, with which she was satisfied for 11 years, until she filed this suit, in forma pauperis, for maintenance at Rs. 100 a month, arrears of maintenance for 11 ye...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Madiga Narasigadu, Son of Peddanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ558
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. One Dasappa was murdered and certain persons were prosecuted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, in connection with that murder. The petitioners gave statements in that case under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, in connection with the death of Dasappa before the Taluk Magistrate, Dharmavaram. They stated to the effect that they had actually witnessed the assault which eventually resulted in the death of Dasappa and some of them had been asked to watch over the injured persons. Later on in the preliminary enquiry they denied the earlier story and stated that they made the statements before the Taluk Magistrate as the police threatened them and that the statements were really made at the dictation of the police. Subsequently these witnesses were given up in the Sessions Court. The accused were tried and acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The learned Sessions Judge held on a consideration of the evidence that the prosecution failed to prove the case s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S. Mohammad Sheriff and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ876
ORDERSuba Rao, J.1. The two accused were convicted by the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras under 8. 42 (1) read with 8. 123, Motor Vehicles Act, for having used the lorry on 12th November 194S on Perambur Barracks Road in contravention of the conditions of the permit. The accused in Cr. B. C. No. 916 of 1947, Mohamed Sheriff, is the- owner of the lorry and Joseph, the accused in Cr. K. C. No, 916 of 1917, is the driver of the said lorry. The owner was sentenced to pay a fine of Bs. 100, in default to simple imprisonment for one month and the driver to pay a fine of Bs. 25, in default to simple imprisonment for one week.2. Mohamed Sheriff is the owner of the Roxy Taxi Co., and he owns 12 taxis, and four lorries. M. S. P. No S 5 is one of such lorries. Ex. 0 l waa the permit in regard to the said lorry. Under the permit the owner was authorised to convey vegetables and food-grains only on behalf of the military. It is admitted that on 12th November 1946 the lorry was used for car-Tyi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S. Mohammad Sheriff (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ555
Subba Rao, J.1. The two accused were convicted by the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under Section 42(1) read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act for having used the lorry on 12th November, 1946, on Perambur Barracks Road in contravention of the conditions of the permit. The accused in Cr. R.C. No. 915 of 1947, Mohammad Sheriff, is the owner of the lorry and Joseph, the accused in Cr. R.C. No. 916 of 1947 is the driver of the said lorry. The owner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to simple imprisonment for one month and the driver to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to simple imprisonment for one week.2. Mohammad Sheriff is the owner of the Roxy Taxi Co., and he owns 12 taxis and four lorries. M.S.P. No. 815 is one of such lorries. Ex. C-1 was the permit in regard to the said lorry. Under the permit the owner was authorised to convey vegetables and foodgrains only on behalf of the military. It is admitted that on 12th November, 1946, the lorry was used fo...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaraya Padayachi and anr. Vs. Kozhandaivel Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ567
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a revision against the order of the lower Court dismissing the application to issue a commission to examine Mr. Dixit, Government Examiner of questioned documents, Central Provinces and Berar, on commission. The suit was on a promissory note. The defence was that the endorsement was a forgery. The respondent filed an application I.A. No. 223 of 1947 for issuing a commission to Mr. Dixit, Government Examiner of questioned documents, Central Provinces and Berar. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the application on the ground that both under the rules and as a matter of expediency it was desirable that the suit documents should be examined by the Government Examiner of the Central Government.2. A party to a suit has a right to ask for the issue of a commission to examine a witness beyond the prescribed distance. The same principle applies even in the case of an expert witness. In Sitamma v. Subraya : (1911)21MLJ889 . Abdur Rahim and Sundara Aiyar, JJ., recogni...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: J.F. Mathias
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ556
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. The charge against the accused was that he on 20th June 1917 at about 9-16 A.M., when he was riding his motor cycle M. D. x. 82 on the public road from Maidan Road towards Baimatta side failed to stop the vehicle at the Hampankatta beat point Rs. 3 when a stop signal was given by a police-officer in uniform at that traffic point thereby violating Section 87(l)(a), Motor Vehicles Act. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate believed the evidence of the police constable and convicted the accused under the said section and fined him a sum of five rupees. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of p. w. 1.2. Mr. Santosh raised a point for the first time that the prosecution did not establish by evidence one of the important ingredients of the section, namely, that the police-officer was in uniform at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed.3. Section 87(1)(a), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, reads as follows:The driver of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »