Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1944All62
Allsop, J.1. The question which we have to answer is whether the Governor-General had power validly to enact Section 2 of ordinance 14 of 1943. His powers of legislation are derived from the provisions of Section 72 set out in Schedule 9, Government of India Act, 1935. These provisions as amended are as follows:The Governor-General may in oases of emergency make and promulgate ordinances for the peace and good government of British India or any part thereof and any ordinance so made shall have the like force of law as an Act passed by the Indian Legislature; but the power of making ordinances under this section is subject to the like restrictions as the power of the Indian Legislature to make laws; and any ordinance made under this section is subject to the like disallowance as an Act passed by the Indian Legislature and may be controlled or superseded by any such Act.There is a provision in the India and Burma (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1940, that the Governor-General shall not be su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1944All257
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by Sheokali Goswami against his conviction under Section 161, Penal Code, by a Special Tribunal constituted under Ordinance 29 of 1943. The tribunal sentenced the applicant to 2 1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ns. 500. In default of the. payment of fine, the applicant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further term of six months.2. The applicant was posted as chief goods clerk at Shahjahanpur railway station and the charge against him was that he on 15th July 1943, when posted as chief goods clerk and thus directly concerned in that capacity with transport of goods, in his capacity as a public servant as such, obtained Rs. 100 as illegal gratification from one Abdul Hakim in respect of five wagons, booked for Abdul Hakim, in June and July 1943, for transport of bones, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 161, Penal Code. Even though the offence was alleged to have been committed i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All740; 153Ind.Cas.824
Niamatullah, J.1. I agree with the conclusions arrived at by any learned brother and desire to make a few observations on some of the questions of law which ha has so elaborately discussed in his judgment. It is contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Agra had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is pointed out that the contract between the parties was entered into at Baroda, where payment was to be made, and that the defendant's place of business is also at Baroda. The plaintiff's reply to this objection is that the cause of action for the suit arose partly, at any rate, at every one of the places where, according to the terms of the contract between the parties, sleepers could be delivered and that Agra was one of the places where the contract made it permissible for the plaintiff to make delivery. The agreement does not mention in clear terms that the plaintiff could deliver at Agra; but the language employed in the various orders can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad22
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The three charges against the petitioners were (1) that in the mouth of April or May 1946 they cheated Albert Correa, P. W. 10, at Verapurzha in Travancore State, (2) that about the month of March 1946 they cheated P. W. 11, V. Hormis, at Cheranallur in Cochin state and (3) that in about February 1946, again at Cheranallur in Cochin, they cheated P. W. 12, M. C. Simon, and that they committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 37, Penal Code, The petitioners have applied to have these charges quashed.2. On the date of the offences complained of the accused were 'native Indian subjects of His Majesty within the meaning of Section 4, Clause (1), Penal Code, as it stood on that date. The offences were alleged to have been committed in Travancore and Cochin which were beyond 'British India' within the meaning of Section 4(1), Penal Code. Section 188, Criminal P. C., prescribed the sanction of the political agent or of a local Government before cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ405
ORDER.Whereas I have reasonable cause to believe Jack Periz-weig alias Robert Liversidge to be a person of hostile associations and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him: Now, therefore, I, in pursuance of the power conferred on me by Reg. 18B, Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, hereby make the following order: I direct that the abovementioned Jacts Perizweig alias Robert Liversidge be detained.(Signed) John Anderson,One of His Majesty's PrincipalSecretaries of State.Beyond the production of this order, the Secretary of State who made the order did not make an affidavit in the action. It was contended inter alia, that the mere production of an order signed by the Secretary of State was not a sufficient prima facie defence and the onus lay on the respondent to give evidence at the trial to prove that Sir John Anderson had reasonable grounds for the belief recited in the order. Via-count Maugham sums up his conclusion thus:The result is that there is no pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ44
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner Major F.K. Mistry who was an Ordinance Officer in charge of the Returned Stores Depot, Almadi, Avadi Sub-Area, along with two others was prosecuted firstly for having conspired to remove and continually misappropriate, tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and secondly in pursuance to that conspiracy for having with his two associates managed, in their capacity as officers belonging to the Ordinance Department in the Indian Army, to remove quantities of tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and in compensation for which act, the petitioner was paid Rs. 800 out of the sale proceeds of these articles on or about the 31st August, 1946. The charge-sheet was filed on the 24th July, 1947, alleging that the offences were committed on 28th August, 1946, and the petitioner received his share of the proceeds of misappropriation on the 31st August, 1946. Fourteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution and thereafter charges were framed on the 1st o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1935)68MLJ1
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. Before dealing with the first point to be considered by this Full Bench, I propose to set out some of the facts of this case.2. At 1.34 A.M. on the 13th January of this year the Parcels Express train which left the Egmore Station at Madras, at 10-40 P.M. arrived at Karunguzhi Station on the South Indian Railway There it delivered six parcels. Five of these were handed over to respective owners on production by them of the tickets relating to them at about 7 O'clock on the same morning. The sixth remained undelivered as no one claimed it. It is described by Mr. T.S. Narayanaswami Aiyar (P.W. 28) the Assistant Station Master at Karunguzhi to whom all the parcels were delivered as a bed parcel packed in a date leaf mat. The receipt of this parcel and the others was acknowledged by this witness in Ex. U. In order that parcels could be carried by that train as luggage it is necessary for the senders to have passenger tickets and the number of each pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad259; [1951]19ITR487(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These references though, they relate to different assessees arise under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, & the question referred is substantially the same in both. except for the dates.'Whether In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in holding that, for the purpose of computing the capital employed in the business as at the beginning & the end of the standard period 1-10-1935 to 31-12-1936 (31-1-1936 is a mistake) the value of the depreciable assets should be determined with reference to the depreciation allowable under the Indian Income-tax Amendment Act, 1939'.(The standard period in R. C. No. 63 of 1947 is from 1-1-1936 to 31-12-1936).2. In view of the arguments addressed-in these cases we had to alter the question & it was agreed that the following question brings out clearly the real bone of contention between the parties: 'Whether the profits for the purpose of Rule 5 of Schedule II should be calculated in the manner prescribed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad323; (1952)IMLJ71
1. These second appeals and the civil revision petitions arise out of a batch of suits relating to the village of Manamelpatti, a Dharmasanam village, in the Ramnad District. The suits out of which these second appeals arise were instituted by the trustees of Airabhadeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Temple for ejectment of the defendants from the lands in their respective possession and for recovery of rent for faslis 1349 and 1350 and for future profits. The village comprises 80 pangus out of which the plaint temple in this batch owns 23 1/2 pangus purchased from the original owners and one pangu taken on othi from the owner. The plaintiffs in the batch of suits out of which the civil revision petitions arise are the managers of the Devasthanam of Nagara Vairavanpatti Valaroleeswaraswami Nagara Vairavaswami Devasthanam. This temple owns 54 and 5/8th pangus or shares in the village and suits were instituted for recovery of the balance of amounts due as 'iru bogam' for faslis 1349 and 1350....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1924Mad657; (1924)46MLJ274
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This is an application to set aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore wherein he revoked the sanction to prosecute the respondents granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tanjore. The application is under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code which has been amended by Act XVIII of 1923. The old section allowed application to be made by a private party. This has now been abolished by the amended section and no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, etc., or of the Court when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in that Court. Mr. A. V. Visvanatha Sastriar, who appears for the respondents, takes more than one preliminary objection. We have only heard him so far on one, and that is the question whether sanction proceedings can now be entertained under the Crim...
Tag this Judgment!