Chennai Court February 1954 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Nookiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1385
Govinda Menon, J.1. The first accused in case No. 14 of the Fourth Criminal Sessions of 1953 was charged with two offences, The first was under Section 332, I.P.C., in that he voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant, viz., police constable Masilamani, by injuring him with finger-nails while the accused was in his custody. The second charge was under Section 333 I.P.C., that in the course of the same transaction the accused caused grievous hurt to one Govindaswami, another once constable, while in the discharge of his duties as such public servant by twisting and breaking his left ring finger. So far as the second charge was concerned the jury unanimously found him not guilty.With regard to the first charge, i.e., of an offence under Section 332 I.P.C., for voluntarily causing hurt to Masilamani, the jury were divided in their opinion and as many as six members of the Jury were unable to agree in their conclusions. Such being the case, under Section 305 Clause (4) Crl. P. C. the lea...
Muthu Velu and ors. Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1078; (1954)IIMLJ636
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution relate to the levy of assessment on private lands in inam villages which were taken over under the provisions of Madras Act 26 of 1948.Under Section 13 of that Act, in the case of an inam estate the land-holder is entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of lands which immediately before the notified date belonged to him as private lands within the meaning of Section 3 (10) (b) of the Estates Land Act or stood recorded as private land.Under Section 16 (1), every person, whether a landholder or a ryot, who becomes entitled to a ryotwari patta under the Act in respect of any land shall with effect on and from the notified date be liable to pay to the Government such assessment as may be lawfully imposed on the land.Under Section 22 of the Act, a ryotwari settlement of all the estates including inam estates taken over under the Act is contemplated. Until sucn ryotwari settlement effected in pursuance of Section 22...
G. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Secretary, Devakottai Co-operative Urban Bank ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad41
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner In this writ petition seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the orders of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai and to quash the proceedings directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 200 from the petitioner which was paid to him by the Devakottai Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was the Honorary Secretary of the Devakottai Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., who is the first respondent in this-writ petition, during the period 3-12-1842 and 19-2-1944. The bye-laws of the Bank which were in force till 10-11-1943 made provision for the post of an Honorary Secretary to whom an honorarium based on a percentage of the profits was to be paid. The Government recommended to the Cooperative Banks under their control, modification-in their rules and bye-laws by which these institutions were directed to have a whole time paid secretary. In...
V. M. Raghavalu Naidu and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1954
Reported in: [1945]13ITR194(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice.)The assessee are the executors of the will of one V. M. Seshachalam Naidu, who dies in the year 1936. By his will he directed that his executors should pay to his widow monthly for the maintenance of herself and her children. In accordance with these directions, the executors paid to the widow Rs. 12,156 in the year of account. The Income-tax Officer assessed the executors on the footing that the estate belonged to the joint Hindu family, but on appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner said that the status was that of an 'association of individuals', and directed the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment on this basis. The Income-tax Officer did so and again allowed the deduction of the Rs. 12,156. In the following year, another Income-tax Officer decided that his predecessor was wrong in allowing the deduction of Rs. 12,156 and decided to reopen the assessment under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act Con...
In Re: Guruviah Naidu and Company Represented by Muhammad Abbas and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad833
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. In Crl. R. C. Nos. 88 and 89 of 1953, the accused have been convicted under Section 15(b), Madras General Sales Tax Act, and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen clays. The sales tax amounts of Rs. 3125-4-0 and Rs. 4000-6-6 respectively have been directed, to be recovered from them as if they were fines. In Crl. R. C. Nos. 90 and 91 of 1953, the accused have been convicted under the same section and each of them sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. In addition, the sales tax amounts due, viz., Rs. 3577-6-0 and Rs. 1522-7-3 respectively have been directed to be recovered from them as if they were fines.2. The facts in each of these cases are the same and accordingly the order of the learned Magistrate in each of these cases is also, in substance, the same. The witnesses examined for the prosecution are also the same and the defen...
Dupada Madappa (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Alampalli Athmaramayya Setti an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad981; (1954)IIMLJ319
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question in this case is whether the debt under a mortgage executed on 8-7-1921 by defendants 1 and 2 and their father in favour of the plaintiff's predecessors was liable to be scaled down under the provisions of the Madas Agriculturists Relief Act. Defendants 10 and 11 in the suit are the appellants before us. They are the purchasers of items 3 and 7 of the mortgaged properties.2. The facts necessary for a decision of this question are as follows: On 26-11-1913 one Srinivasahi Chetti and his two sons, the present defendants 1 and 2, executed a promissory note in favour of one Adinarayanayya and his son Admoorthayya, the plaintiffs' predecessors-in-title tor a sum of RS. 5000 carrying interest at 7 1/2 per cent, per annum.On 8-1-1920 the same debtors executed another promissory note for a sum or Rs. 5000 in favour of the same creditors. The sum represented the principal due under the prior promissory note of 1913, the outstanding interest having been paid o...
In Re: Maddela Yerra Channugadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad911
Govinda Menon, J.1. When these referred trials came up for hearing on 19th inst. the Public Prosecutor, Andhra, informed the court that he has been instructed to state that all the condemned prisoners, whose trials have been referred for the confirmation of sentences by the High Court, have been released as a result of a general amnesty granted by the Government of Andhra and therefore he submitted that, the referred trials cannot be proceeded with. The question then arose as to whether the release of the condemned prisoners, pending the confirmation of their sentences by this court, does, or does not amount to an act of interference with the due and proper course of justice in that in cases pending before this court, the Government have, by their action, prevented the proper disposal of these cases.Under these circumstances, we requested the Advocate Genera], Andhra, to appear before us on 22-1-1954 and explain & clarify to us the situation created by the order of general amnesty. Acc...
Subbarama Reddiar and ors. Vs. Raghava Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad439
Rajamannar C.J. 1. This is an appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent against the judgment of Viswanatha Sastri J., dismissing S. A. No. 1178 of 1947, with his leave. The appeal arises out of a - suit-brought by the-original respondent to recover the amount due-under a mortgage deed dated 24-1-1927, executed by one Muthu Goundan to one Kanhayya Reddi for Rs. 1000. The respondent claimed under art assignment from the original mortgagee. The mortgaged property comprised three items. Subsequent to the mortgage, by a sale deed dated 4-6-1941, Muthu Goundan conveyed to defendant 1 a moiety of items 1 and 2 of the mortgaged properties. On the same day, a brother of Muthu Goundan sold. the other moiety in these items to defendant 2. The third item continued to remain with the mortgagor.The suit was brought against the purchaser as^ defendants 1 and 2, hut the original mortgagor was not made a party. The plaint schedule, however, included item 3 also, though the mortgagor who-was in possession ...
In Re: K.V. Narasimha Rao, Administrator, Appointed by the High Court, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1014
ORDERBalakrishna Aiyar, J.1. In the morning on 10-5-1953, the bus MDK 877 was running from Vijayawada to Bandar. At about 8-15 a.m. it was stopped at Vuyyur and checked by HC. 1102. He noticed that there was no tarpaulin in the bus. He therefore laid a charge-sheet against the company represented by its administrator for violation of the Rule 380 of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nuzwid confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The present petition has been filed to revise that order.2. The defence of the accused was that there was no rain that day at the time and that therefore he was under no obligation to carry any tarpaulin at the time. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate negatived the contention in these terms :'It was contended for appellant in the appeal that the learned Magistrate was not correct in finding the accused guilty un...
Public Prosecutor Vs. G.T. Krishnaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1021
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the state against the acquittal of the two respondents by the Sub-Magistrate of Udumalpet in C. C. Nos. 841, 842, 844, 846 and 960 of 1952 on his file.2. The first respondent in the above appeal is the owner of a tractor and trailer, M. D. C. No. 5727 and the second respondent is the driver. The vehicle was being driven on the public road in Udumalpet on 20-8-1952. When it was checked by the Motor Vehicle Taxation Sub-Inspector, it was found to carry manure. The vehicle had no permit as required by Section 42(1), Motor Vehicles Act. Nor did it possess a fitness certificate as required by Section 38(1) of the Act. It was also found that the provincial tax for the quarter ending 30-9-1952 was not paid. These facts were and are not disputed. On the above facts the respondents were prosecuted for offences under Sections. 38(1) and 42(1) read with Section 123, Motor Vehicles Act, and the first respondent was further prosecuted for an offence under Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »