Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-02-1921
Reported in : AIR1921Mad524; (1921)41MLJ177
..... in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction tjie prohibition imposed upon the high court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction by section 106 of the government of india act as regards acts done by the revenue authority in good faith. further, as at present advised i am not satisfied that there are any sufficient grounds for holding ..... upon it. morgan, c. j. thought it did. inncs and kernan, jj. thought it did not, though -for dillrent -'reasons. the trainers of the government of india act 191.5 were obviously of the same opinion as morgan, c.j.. as they treated the prohibition as still in force and reenacted it in section 1.06 of ..... in full force. this, however was not one of the statutory provisions which the indian legislature was prohibited from altering under the indian councils act, 1861, and section 131(3) of the government of india act, 1915, and the fifth schedule thereto expressly recognises, the power of the indian legislature to repeal or alter the provisions of section 106 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-02-1921
Reported in : (1921)ILR44Mad718
..... in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction the prohibition imposed upon the high court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction by section 106 of the government of india act as regards acts done by the revenue authority in good faith. further, as at present advised, i am not satisfied that there are any sufficient grounds for ..... conferred upon it. morgan, c.j., thought it did. innes and kernan, jj., thought it did not, though for different reasons. the framers of the government of india act, 1915, were obviously of the same opinion as morgan, c.j., as they treated the prohibition as still in force and re-enacted it in section 106 ..... full force. this, however, was not one of the statutory provisions which the indian legislature was prohibited from altering under the indian councils act, 1861, and section 131(3) of the government of india act, 1915, and the fifth schedule thereto, expressly recognizes the power of the indian legislature to repeal or alter the provisions of section 106 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-27-1921
Reported in : AIR1921Mad458; (1921)ILR44Mad913
..... , and there is authority in this court in in re venkata reddy i.l.r., (1913) mad., 216 for holding that the common law of england may be applied to india except where a statute either expressly or by implication abrogates it. we think that the power given in this matter is one which is very essential to the orderly ..... kind, apart from his position as one of the general public. in our opinion, it is very doubtful whether such regulations giving such a power were not really repealed by act xvii of 1862; but in any case we think that the matter is of sufficient importance to base our judgment upon a more general and wider ground and we propose ..... government of society and the preservation of the peace. no doubt the magistracy and the judiciary should jealously watch any interference with the liberty of the subject and scrutinize carefully the acts of any person who alleges that in order to preserve the peace he had to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-27-1921
Reported in : 61Ind.Cas.652
..... and there is authority in this court in potaraju venkata reddi v. emperor 14 ind. cas. 659 for holding that the common law of england may be applied to india, except where a statute, either expressly or by implication abrogates it. we think that the power given in this matter is one which is very essential to the orderly ..... it, so long as his conduct shows that the public peace is likely to be endangered by his sets. in truth, whilst those are assembled together who have, committed acts of violence and the danger of their renewal continues, the affary itself may be said to continue.' we have also been referred to a decision of the court of crown ..... government of society and preservation of the peace. no doubt the magistracy and the judiciary should jealously watch any interference with the liberty of the subject and scrutinize carefully the act of any person who alleges that, in order to preserve the peace, he had .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-09-1921
Reported in : (1921)41MLJ65
..... bringing in legal representative from three years to six months, and it was decided that the application which was made after the coming into force of the limitation act of 1908 was governed by it. the question was further considered and the same view was taken with reference to a case under article 164 in chidambaram chettiv. karuppan chetti i. ..... . 25 and rakhal chandra ghosh v. ashutosh ghosh (1913) 17 c.w.n. 807 where the question was carefully considered that the rigid english rule was inapplicable in india. here the plaintiff's widow as the guardian of her minor sons gave instructions to bring on their names in november 1920 in ample time, and the mistake appears to ..... rao 29 m.l.j. 1 the reason the majority of the full bench held that the provision in question did not repeal section 7, of the limitation act retrospectively as regards the particular cause of action was that any other construction would in the case before the court have taken away the right of suit altogether by leaving .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-08-1921
Reported in : AIR1922Mad337; 66Ind.Cas.566; (1921)41MLJ577
..... and this was not seriously pressed by mr. v.c. seshachari for the petitioner. his contention was that we could interfere under section 107 of the government of india act and clause 16 of the letters patent. the former gives each high court 'superintendence overall courts for the time being subject to its appellate jurisdiction,. ..... secondly, it is contended that even if it is not a criminal matter we onght to interfere under either section 115, civil procedure code, section 107 of the government of india act or clause 16 of the letters patent. the first consideration, therefore, is, is this a criminal matter? as the judge who admitted the petition when ..... determined, has this court any power to interfere in revision? the petition is filed under section 115 of the civil procedure code and section 107 of the government of india act. the former is obviously inapplicable.each of the high courts has superintendence over all courts for the time being subject to its appellate jurisdiction.6. now .....
Tag this Judgment!