Air 1933 Mad 2 - Judgment Search Results
(Peria) Kalathi Mudali Vs. Venkatesa Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad277
that expressed in Devendra v. Shettappa AIR 1923 Bom. 261. In P. Kanakkan v. Amir Bi AIR 1924 Mad 837 Venkatasubba Rao, J., held that the fact that notice of the appeal was not served on the … has been no objection by the Government in this case. As regards the latter point Devendra v. Shettappa AIR 1923 Bom. 261 has been quoted to show that when the District Magistrate does not raise any objection … offence under Section 352, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 each, out of which Rs. 25 was ordered to be paid as
Karingali thendambalath Karnavan and ors. Vs. Karlingali thendambalath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad265
Amma v. Ekanat Shangunni Yalia Kyamal (1882) 5 Mad 71. which was followed in Kunhalikutti Haji v. Kunhamayan AIR 1923 Mad. 230 that the circumstance of each member in respect of his private acquisitions should be taken … sum of money as arrears of maintenance due for six years eight months at the rate of Rs. 20 per mensem. The claim was hotly contested by defendant 1 and the first Court decreed the plaintiffs suit
S. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad279
line. Not only the prosecution evidence of persons knowing Hindustani who heard his speech and the shorthand notes made on the spot of the translation into Tamil, show that he told his hearers to lie on the
18-section briefs on any result in this list
In Re: Bhogole China Somayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad251
I respectfully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of Reilly, J., in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. Chookalingam Ambalam AIR 1929 Mad 201. The trial was over before the petitioners made their application, on 4th April, for a … ORDERBurn, J.1. The case was finished on 17th March 1932, and adjourned on that date to 22nd March 1932, for judgment. The judgment was signed and dated by the Magistrate on 22nd March 1932, but
M.N. Schamnad and anr. Vs. M.N. Rama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad268
the file for an offence under Section 326, I.P.C., against both the accused and issued process.2. The accused made an application to the Subdivisional Magistrate in which they alleged that they had acted in the exercise of
Chitti Babu Mudaliar Vs. A. Venkatasubbu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad264
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This is an appeal against the decree passed by the learned
A. Ghulam MuhiuddIn Rowther Vs. Sulaiman Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad263
the view taken in Trimbak Narayan v. Ramchandra Narsingrao (1899) 23 Bom. 723 and Husenuddin Nuruddin v. Dulakshidas AIR 1923 Bom 299, which are cases in point, and accordingly allow this appeal with costs throughout. - … 1. This is a question under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. The short point is whether an amount which has been deposited in Court can
R. Kandaswami Chettiar Vs. Municipal Council of Pollachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad260
: AIR1926Mad319 was also one of an election petition. In Ramaswami Goundan v. Muthu Velappa Gounder AIR 1923 Mad 192 it was held that a District Judge inquiring into an objection under Section 57, Local Boards Act … Court is not competent to revise that opinion, and for this Clause 2, Section 51 of the Act was relied upon, which says that the … the construction of the rules, cannot be revised by this Court. In Umar Uduman v. Moideen Pillai : AIR1929Mad257 it was held that, although a District or Subordinate Judge deciding an election petition under the rules is
Erranki Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad270
have committed it will not give him the benefit of the section. I do not see how Section 2, Regn. 11 of 1816, to which I have been referred, has any bearing on the point.2. It is … against him. It is not clear however whether this statement by accused 5, which appears to have been made to the police, is one that is admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act, or whether there is any
Mariappan and anr. Vs. Nalla Sevugan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad298
from the plaintiff by interrogatories. The learned advocate for the petitioner quotes Baijnath Kodia v. Raghunath Prasad : AIR1914Cal767 . But that case is obviously distinguishable because the hundi was attacked as a forgery and the initial … on 15th April 1930. There were a number of adjournments and there was an ex parte decree on 25th October 1930. This ex parte decree was set aside on 15th October 1931 by the District Court (C.M.A.
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free