Chennai Court November 1955 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: M.S. Rangarathnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ138
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case filed against the order made by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, in M. P. No. 26 of 1955.2. The facts are : In C. C. No. 5290 of 1953 one Baghwandass Bansal and two others were charged under Sections 420 & 34, I. P. C. This Bhagwandass was produced before the third Presidency Magistrate to take his trial. He was directed to be released, on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,000, with one surety for a like sum. One M. S. Rangarathnam, the petitioner before us, offered himself as a surety and tendered Rs. 1000 in cash as surety amount.It was accepted by the magistrate and the bond executed was to the effect that this Rangarathnam bound himself as surety for the above named Bhagwandass to attend before the Third Presidency Magistrate at Saidapet at 11 a.m. on 19-3-1954 to answer to the charge on which he has been arrested and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the court and in case of his making ...
Thangammal (Died) and anr. Vs. Narayanaswami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ474
Govinda Menon, J.1. Both the Lower Courts have held that the bona fide requirement contemplated under Section 20, Sub-section (5) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, XIV of 1930, did exist and decreed the suit out of which the above second appeal arose. After the passing of the Amended Act, on a combined reading of proviso (iii) to Sub-section (6) of Section 25 with Section 25, Sub-section (2) of Act VII of 1954, it has to be held that a person who is an assignee of the landholder's rights, if he wants to avail himself of the provisions of Clauses (4) and (5) of Section 25 can have a right to do so only after the expiry of two years from the assignment and this has been given retrospective effect by Section 25, Sub-section (2) of Act VII of 1954. Therefore, at the time when this Second Appeal comes up for hearing, the law to be administered is in accordance with Clauses (4) and (5) of Section 25, with the result that if the suit had been instituted before the expiry of two years from the date ...
B.A. Khan Alias Bahadur Ali Khan Vs. Nawaz Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ388
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in A.S. No. 158 of 1951 reversing the well-considered order of the learned District Munsif of Kallakurichi in O.P. No. 12 of 1950.The facts are: Exhibit A-1 is the document in question. It is described to be a sale executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent's father, for a consideration of Rs. 800. The consideration consists of three items, viz-, (1) Rs. 300 due by the vendor on a usufructuary mortgage in favour of one Karuppan which was directed to be discharged by the vendee; (2) Rs. 120 being the sale price of the house purchased by the vendor from the vendee and (3) Rs. 380 being the cash stated to have been received by the vendor for discharging a mortgage debt in favour of one Sembarampettu Sold Kanakam. This document contains a clause which reads as follows:If from to-day within six years I pay the aforesaid amount, I shall take a conveyance of thi...
In Re: Muthuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1955
Reported in: (1956)IMLJ304
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision ease filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate of Pudukottai in C. C. No. 154 of 1954 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli Division in C. A. No. 397 of 1954.2. The case for the prosecution as established by the five witnesses examined by them was as follows : P. Ws. 1 and 3 are the forest guard and watcher of Tiruvarangulam reserve forest. Their evidence is that on 21-5-1954 while patrolling the forest in Milakaranai block No. 5 beat at about 5-30 p. m. they heard a gun shot noise, that they went towards the spot, that seeing the hoof mark's of a deer they waited there for some time behind a bush, that they saw the accused tracking the hoof marks of the deer holding a gun in his hand, that they immediately caught him and snatched the gun from him and that when p. w. 1 made preparations to record a statement from the accused the latter took to his heels d...
In Re: R.T. Arasu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad407; 1956CriLJ1003
Somasundaram, J.1. These are appeals by accused 1 and 2 against their convictions and sentences by Ramaswami J. on the Jury's unanimous verdict of guilty on the first and second charges against both the two accused, and on the third and fifth charges against the second accused. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty against the first accused with regard to the fourth and sixth charges and so he has been acquitted of those two charges.2. The first charge against the second accused is for an offence under Section 472, I.P.C. in that he was in possession of a counterfeit seal of the Madras Ration Sub-Treasury for the purpose of committing forgery in respect of the Ration Sub-treasury chalans. The first accused is charged with abetment of the said offence.The third charge states that the second accused during the said period, namely, January 1954 fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine certain documents purporting to be receipts acknowledging the payment of money, namely, 13 Madras...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›