Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad1; (1926)51MLJ529
C.V. Kumaraswami Sastri, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Devadoss, J., in S.A. No. 100 of 1923. The 2nd defendant applied to the District Court of Kistna to be adjudicated an insolvent on the 24th of January, 1918. On the 31st of January, 1918 the District Court transferred the petition to the Official Receiver, the 1st defendant. The adjudication order was made on the 15th of July, 1918 and the Official Receiver put the property in dispute to sale at an auction held on the 25th of August 1918, and executed a sale deed on the 12th of September, 1919. Defendants 3 to 5 are the purchasers under the sale deed. The plaintiff who is the son of the 2nd defendant sued for a declaration that the sale by the Official Receiver is invalid, and for a partition and delivery to him of his share. He alleged that the debts contracted by his father were for illegal and immoral purposes not binding on him and that even if the sale is valid his interest would not be affe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD ROCHE: This is an appeal against a decree dated 19th December 1933, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its appellate jurisdiction affirming a judgment of the High Court in its original jurisdiction dismissing the action of the present appellant, the plaintiff in the action. The action was one claiming damages for wrongful dismissal from Government service and the questions involved were whether the dismissal was in fact wrongful and in breach of the material rules of the service, and if so, whether the suit for damages was maintainable. The facts of the case were these: The appellant in May 1924 was a reader in the Government Press, Madras, and as such reader held office in the Civil Service of the Crown in India. In May 1924, he fell under suspicion of being concerned in a leakage of information in respect of Pleadership Examination papers. The appellant consistently and stoutly denied the charge. The matter was investigated and at first the appellant was directed to vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR699
Roche, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree dated December 19, 1933, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its appellate jurisdiction affirming a judgment of the High Court in its original jurisdiction dismissing the action of the present appellant, the plaintiff in the action. The action was one claiming damages for wrongful dismissal from Government service and the questions involved were whether the dismissal was in fact wrongful and in breach of the material rules of the service and, if so, whether the suit for damages was maintainable.2. The facts of the case were these : The appellant in May, 1924, was a reader in the Government Press, Madras, and as such reader held office: in the civil service of the Crown in India. In May, 1924, he fell under suspicion of being concerned in a leakage of information in respect of the charge. The matter was investigated and at first the appellant was directed to vindicate his character in a Court of law. He proceeded to do so by action...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Federal Court of India dated 4 - 5 - 1945, Which varied a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 27 - 3 - 1944. [2] The respondent, who had been a member of the Indian Civil Service since 1922, instituted the present suit on 20 - 7 - 1942, against the Secretary of State for India, challenging the validity of an order by the latter dated 10 - 8 - 1940, which purported to remove the respondent from the Indian Civil Service. 3 The Secretary of State for India was the original appellant in this appeal, but, after the hearing before this Board in July last, the Indian Independence Act, 1947, came into operation on 15 August 1947. By S. 15 (1) of the Act, the present appeal by the Secretary of State was abated, and by S. 15 (2) the appeal was continued by the High Commissioner. By sub - s. (3) of that section, the expression "the High Commissioner" is defined for the purposes of the section. The High Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad735; 173Ind.Cas.251; (1937)2MLJ189
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal is from an order passed by Gentle, J., on two applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act praying for an order restraining the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, by a writ of prohibition from conducting or holding or proceeding with an enquiry into the conduct of the two applicants. The appellant was the applicant in No. 349 of 1937. The order passed by Gentle, J., covered the contentions of both of the applicants which were identical. An interim injunction had been granted on the 8th February. Gentle, J., by his order dissolved that injunction, discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the applications.2. The appellant is an Assistant Commissioner of Salt and Customs, Central Division, Madras, to which office he was appointed on the 16th March, 1936, before which date he was Inspector of Salt and Customs, Negapatam. Certain charges had been made against the appellant and an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad243
ORDER1. These are applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C., to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of the petitioners who were detained under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, (Act I [1] of 1947). As these petitions raised some common questions of law, we thought it convenient to hear and dispose of these questions before considering the merits of each application. The orders of detention under the Act in all the petitions except four, Cri. M. Ps. Nos. 1645 and 1651 of 1949, 1527 and 1611 of 1949 were passed after 12th March 1948, and according to the petitioners on the date on which the orders of detention in these cases were passed, the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, ceased to be in force and that therefore the orders of detention were without authority and were illegal.2. The maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (Madras Act I [1] of 1947), hereinafter called 'the Act' in the course of this judgment, received the...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR209
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment dated January 3, 1939, of Mr. R.R. Karnik, who was then First Class Subordinate Judge at Dhulia. That a delay of nearly seven years should intervene before an appeal is disposed of by this Court is a deplorable state of affairs and is one which it is to be hoped the new rules which have been recently introduced will prevent ever happening in the future. In this particular case, however, the delay has in part been brought about by the fact that when this appeal first came before this Court, certain documents which the Court considered necessary had not been disclosed and were not available, and also because the case was adjourned in order that Government might have an opportunity of being represented by the Advocate General, having regard to the public importance of the questions involved.2. The suit concerns an alleged auction sale conducted by a Mamlatdar as a revenue officer of Government, by which it is alleged that prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 18Ind.Cas.171
ORDER1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor, concerning the disposal of certain money and other articles seized by the Police in connection with a complaint of theft preferred by the petitioner against one Venkateswara Aiyar. The seizure was made in consequence of the petitioner's statement to the Police that he saw the accused running away from his house along with another person. A preliminary investigation was held by the Inspector of Police who came to the conclusion that the case was a false one and that the articles seized were probably foisted by the complainant himself or by his men into the accused's house where they were found by the Police. The complaint against the accused was dismissed by the 2nd class Magistrate of Gudiyatham under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without notice to the accused. He directed under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the articles seized by the Police should be forfeited t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)22MLJ490
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(6) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence, punishable under Section 121 A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J. and Ayling, J.) convicted the first seven and the 14th accused of the offence, charged under Section 121 A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran Nair, J.) convicted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires further consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public Prosecutor, appea...
Tag this Judgment!