Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1897)ILR20Mad189
Collins, C.J.1. In answering this reference to the Full Bench, I intoned to follow the exact words of the reference. The question is whether the accused had, from the moment of his accusation, a right to inspect and obtain copies of the documents in question for the purpose of his defence. These documents are certain police reports including a charge sheet. The reference assumes that the documents are records of the acts of public officers submitted by them as required by law--see Sections 157, 168 and 173, Code of Criminal Procedure--and that they are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that any person interested in the subject-matter of a public document has a right to inspect it and under Section 76, Evidence Act, has also the right to have a copy of such document supplied to him; but that is really the point the Full Bench has to decide There appears no doubt that a person accused is a person interested in the documents referred to in S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1914Mad162; (1914)ILR37Mad462; 22Ind.Cas.899; (1914)26MLJ189
1. The second defendant, one of the three judgment-debtors, is the appellant before this Court. This appeal has arisen out of an execution petition put in by the decree-holder. The facts are a little complicated, and though it is not necessary to retail all the facts, it is necessary to set out the following for understanding the contentions on both sides:2. The decree in this case was passed so long ago as March 1898 in favour of one Arunachallam Chettiyar. There were several execution petitions by the said decree-holder himself. The decree is then alleged to have fallen, in a partition between two members of the decree holder's family and a partner of the family firm, to the share of the said partner who also held a power of attorney from the decree-holder. This partner filed execution petitions in 1905 and 1907. Finally on the 21st April 1909, Execution Petition No. 389 of 1909 was filed by a next friend on behalf of the minor son of the said partner after the death of the latter.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1939)2MLJ639
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case applies for the committal of Sir James Taylor, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Mr. M.M. Bhargava, the Manager of the Madras Branch of that Bank, and Mr. G.A. Johnson, the acting Editor of the 'Madras Mail' for alleged contempt of Court. The action of the first respondent complained of is that he procured the publication of a letter dated 22nd July, 1938, written by him to the Prime Minister of the Madras Government with reference to a petition then before this Court for the compulsory winding up of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Limited. The letter was published in the lopal press on the 9th August at the request of the first respondent conveyed in a letter by the second respondent to the Secretary for the Government of Madras, Development Department. The complaint against the acting Editor of the 'Madras Mail' is that he published the letter and also published a leading article commenting on a scheme fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1941Mad817; (1941)2MLJ125
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These petitions relate to the petitioner's claim to recover his costs, etc., in Privy Council Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1933 in which a preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 26,302-3-6 passed in favour of the petitioner was upheld by His Majesty in Council on the 26th September, 1936.2. The petitioner applied in C.M.P. No. 949 of 1939 in the lower Court for a final decree for the balance of the amount due under the preliminary decree after giving credit for amounts paid from time to time by the respondent judgment-debtor, and the latter filed LA. No. 506 of 1938 to scale down the decree under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Both these applications were dealt with together and the learned Subordinate Judge finding that sums already paid by the respondent amounted to more than twice the principal amount of the debt after adjusting such payments towards all costs decreed to the petitioner including the costs now claimed dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ679; (1948)2MLJ634
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner R. Ramanathan was arrested under the Provisions of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, on 1st April, 1948, at 6 A.M; in Royapettah. He was taken to the Royapettah Police Station and thence to the Madras Penitentiary where he was detained. The detention was under the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Madras, who on the same day intimated to the Government the fact of the issue of the order of detention along with the grounds for detention. The grounds were despatched by the Provincial Government to the Central Jail, Vellore, for service on the petitioner on 24th April, 1948. In the affidavit filed by a friend of the detenu it is stated that Ramanathan had been working as Joint Secretary of the Madras Provincial Trade Union Congress, and that for ten. years he was doing trade union work and as such was carrying on lawful activities connected with M.P.T.U.C. A further ground was taken in that affidavit that the order of detention was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad769
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan J. in W.P. No 36 of 1957, filed by the appellant in the following circumstances, The appellant was appointed in 1941 as a lower division clerk in the office of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board at Madras. In July 1944 he was transferred and posted as lower division inspector In the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Kozikode, South Malabar. In September 1951 when the Hindu Religious Endowments Board was abolished and in its stead the department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments came into existence, he became a permanent lower division clerk acting as upper division clerk in the department. He then served in many posts till he was eventually posted as acting upper division inspector under the Assistant Commissioner, Palghat by an order dated 1st June 1956. On 16th August 1956 he was placed under suspension. Charges of misconduct were framed against him and the tribunal for discipl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1957)2MLJ280
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., in Writ Petition No. 36 of 1957, filed by the appellant in the following circumstances. The appellant was appointed in 1941 as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board at Madras. In July, 1944, he was transferred and posted as Lower Division Inspector in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Kozhikode, South Malabar. In September, 1951, when the Hindu Religious Endowments Board was abolished and in its stead the Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments came into existence, he became a permanent Lower Division Clerk acting as Upper Division Clerk in the Department. He then served in many posts till he was eventually posted as acting Upper Division Inspector under the Assistant Commissioner, Palghat, by an order, dated 1st June, 1956. On 16th August, 1956, he was placed under suspension. Charges of misconduct were framed ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1957)IILLJ506Mad; (1958)IMLJ360
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner company manufactures and 'Bella tyres, among other rubber goods, in India. It has its head office at Bombay. One of its branch offices is at Madras with jurisdiction over the territorial area known as Madras district. The district extends over areas which lie outside the State, in Kerala, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh. The sub-depots at Ernakulam, Bangalore and Vijayawada are within the district of Madras.2. On the recommendation of the Tariff Commission in 1953 the Government of India ordered a reduction in the sale price of tyres by 10 per cent. The Tariff Commission pointed out in its report that the proportion of administration, selling and distribution expenses of the petitioner company was high, when compared with such charges incurred by other companies manufacturing and selling tyres in India. The petitioner company reorganized its methods of business, which resulted in a reduction in the amount of office work to be done in the Madras office. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1958)2MLJ141
ORDERSubrahmanyam, J.1. The petitioner-company passed a special resolution so as to have clause (2) of its Memorandum of Association altered as follows:The Registered Office of the Company will be situate at Pondicherry.2. The company's registered office is at present in the city of Madras.3. A resolution altering the provisions of the memorandum cannot take effect, under Section 17(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, until such resolution is confirmed by the Court on petition. The petitioner-company seeks confirmation of the alteration. The power which a company has to alter the provisions of the memorandum is defined in Section 17(1). The part of Section 17(1) relevant to the present petition is this:A company may, by special resolution, alter the provisions of its memorandum so as to change the place of its registered office from one State to another.4. The word 'State' is not defined in the Indian Companies Act. The word 'State' is defined in the General Clauses Act I of 1897 as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1958)1MLJ189
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner who is seeking enrolment as an Advocate of this Court has filed this petition praying for the order that he might be exempted from payment of the Stamp duty payable for the entry of his name as an Advocate of this Court.2. The petitioner is a graduate in law of this University and was enrolled as an Advocate of the former Mysore High Court when Mysore was a ' Part B ' on. 20th January, 1955. He states that he was admitted to the roll of that Court on payment of Rs. 300 which was prescribed by the Mysore Stamp Act then in force. After Mysore became a ' Part A ' State as a result of the States Reorganisation Act the petitioner became an Advocate of the Mysore High Court under the proviso to Section 53(2) of the States Reorganisation Act. He claims that as he has been enrolled as an Advocate of a High Court--the Mysore High Court-he is exempt from the payment of any Stamp duty under Article 25 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act as amended in the...
Tag this Judgment!