Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad300
ORDERPanchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner in all these petitions is one Muhammad Abdul Kadar Marakayar. He has been convicted under Section 282, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of RS. 40/-, Rs. 75/-and Rs. 100/-, respectively, in these three cases, for having knowingly and negligently conveyed or caused to be conveyed for hire persons so loaded on his three boats as to endanger the life of the persons travelling in the boats. In Cri. R. C. No. 451, 36 passengers were carried as against 24 passengers allowed under the rules. In Cri R. C. No. 453 of 1949 also there was even more gross overloading, the number of passengers conveyed being 30 instead of the 12 allowed. In Cri. R. C. No. 452, 52 passengers were carried instead of the 30 allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ahmed Meeran, has raised three main contentions.2. The first is that the petitioner is not the owner of the boat concerned in Cri. R. C. No. 452, and that he has also denied the ownership in the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad311
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This revision petition is filed by a successful bidder at an auction sale held by the Official Receiver, Salem, against the order of the District Judge, Salem, dismissing his appeal which was prefered against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, setting aside the sale in his favour. A brief reference may be made to the facts of the case which are not in dispute.2. The Official Receiver, Salem, held an auction sale of the property of an insolvent in I. P. No. 15 of 1941 on 20th December 1946. In a proclamation of sale, he notified that the properties of the insolvent were subject to an encumbrance of Rs. 7000 due to the insolvent's brother. In a partition suit between the insolvent and his brother items 1 and 3 which were valued at Rs. 11,000 and which form the subject matter of the present litigation, were allotted to the insolvent, while item 2 which was valued at Rs. 4000 fell to the share of his brother. To equalise the value the insolvent had to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ767
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an interesting case. The First Class Bench Court, Tiruvottiyur, discharged the respondent Kanniappa, in a case under Section 504, Indian Penal Code. The respondent abused the petitioner in obscene terms stating 'May his wife be ravished ! May the hydrocelic fellow (the petitioner is said to have hydrocele) be beaten till his hydrocele is blown to bits !' This abuse was uttered in the absence of the petitioner, but the people who heard the abuse, they were, members of the Panchayat, conveyed it to the petitioner, Muniswami Naicker, who felt highly put out on hearing their report and felt like committing a breach of the peace but restrained himself with an effort.2. The question is whether, in these circumstances, an offence under Section 504, Indian Penal Code, was or was not made out prima facie. Mr. Asker Ali, for the petitioner, urged with great vehemence, that there is really no distinction between a man who utters such words to panchayatdars an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad746
Horwill, J.1. The appellant has been the tenant of the respondent for the past ten years. As he did not pay rent for August and September 1916 the respondent, on 1st February 1947, filed an application under the Rent Control Act for eviction. Very shortly afterwards, on 6th March 1947, the appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller under the same Act for fixing a fair rent. An order of eviction was obtained by the respondent on 15th September 1917; but no action could be taken by him in execution of that order, because the appellant immediately filed an appeal and obtained on 3rd October 1947 a stay order. On 1st November 1947, on the appellant's application, a fair rent was fixed at Rs. 41-4-0 from 1st October 1916 as against the contractual rent of Rs. 30, the order being passed 'without prejudice to the order of eviction and the order that might be passed in the appeal,' In pursuance of the order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent at Rs. 41-4-0, the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD RADCLIFFE: This appeal is concerned with the legal status of two parcels of land comprising 3.90 acres in all in the village of Byree, Killa Darpan, district Cuttack, Orissa. These two parcels, which may conveniently be referred to as "the disputed area", are themselves part of a Plot No. 1990-2401 in the same village, the plot lying to the west of the Bengal-Nagpur railway line which intersects the village. The documents in this case, not excluding the judgments, do not make it always an easy task to determine whether the whole Plot No. 1990-2401 is not more properly the subject of dispute than that portion of it which is described as the disputed area. In fact all the relevant evidence bears as much upon the status of the larger as of the smaller area. However that may be, the appellants' case is that the disputed area must be recognised in law as a cremation ground of the village and that, it being so, no part of the site can be made available for the purposes of private indust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All258
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit relating to an alleged infringement of trade-mark. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a manufacturing firm called the Indian Drug House, Allahabad, while the defendants are a firm in Bombay manufacturing and dealing with various classes of medicine. The plaintiff in 1930 put on the market a certain, medicine considered to be a nervine tonic which he labelled with the words 'Tonic Phosphotone' while the defendants about six years later brought out another medicine which they advertised under the title of 'Cipla Phosphoton'. Since this year the two medicines, as found by the trial Court, had been in the market and enjoyed each a certain degree of popularity.2. It is necessary to visualise the precise basis on which the plaintiff sought his relief which was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his servants and agents from manufacturing and offering for sale, etc., anywhere in the country any stuff with the mark a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ233
ORDERSanghi, J.1. On 14-7-1949, one Kanakmal an itinerant tradesman made a report at 10-30 A. M. at the Sadar Bazar Police Station, Indore City that his wife Laxmibai had disappeared from the house carrying away with her cash amounting to Rs. 1700 and ornaments valued at Rs. 1900. He also stated in the report that he had learnt that Hidayat Begam (applicant) who lived in the neighbourhood used to visit his wife and Bhura her brother used to visit her sister and that Bhura was not to be found at his house. He therefore, suspected the applicant and her brother Bhura to be concerned in the theft committed by his wife.2. Seven weeks after this, on 8-9-1949, the applicant was arrested by the Officer-in. charge of the Sadar Bazar Police Station at 11-30 in the night. Under Section 167, Criminal P, C. the applicant was produced before the additional City Magistrate, Indore City, at 12-10 A. M. on is.9-1949 and an application was made for her further detention in police custody. The charge sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori106
Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner had obtained this rate against the appellate judgment of the Additional District Magistrate, Balasore, confirming the judgment and sentence of fine of Rs. 25 passed against the petitioner under Section 379, Penal Code, by the Magistrate, 3rd Class, Balasore. 2. The case against the petitioner is that he caught fish in Panehpara river on 10th December 1947 without taking the permission of the complainant who claims to be the licensee of the fishery from Government. The admitted facts are that Plot No. 1326 in Mouza Bahalpur is recorded in the name of Government and is part of a tidal and navigable river. At the previous settlement it was recorded in the name of the local landlord and the fishery right had been assessed at Rs. 9. At the Current Settlement the plot was recorded as a public river in the name of Government. Both the Courts below have proceeded on the assumption that it is a tidal; and navigable river. The petitioner claims to have a common la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad295
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. Plaintiff and defendant 3 are the petitioners. Plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 7 of 1946, for passing a decree in terms of an award, the dispute being between defendants 1 and 2 and defendant 3. This revision petition is against the order of the District Judge of Ramnad allowing an appeal filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai dated 3rd February 1947, dismissing the application for setting aside an ex parte decree passed on 25th February 1946. The application I. A. No. 546 of 1946, was filed under provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 and Section 151, Civil P. C., for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 7 of 1946, the grounds alleged being that they were not served with notice. The learned Subordinate Judge found that notice had been served and dismissed the application. The appellate Court held on an examination of the evidence adduced before the trial Court that the evide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad321
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by a wife against the decree of dismissal by the Courts below of her suit against her husband for separate maintenance. The suit was filed by the wife and her two minor unmarried daughters against defendant 1 for maintenance on the ground that he had brought another woman into the house and was ill-treating the plaintiffs. It was found by the courts below -- and this finding is not challenged in second appeal--that the 'other woman' referred to by the plaintiffs was the second wife of the defendant and the ill-treatment alleged by the plaintiffs was not true. Though the Hindu Married Woman's Rights to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, XIX [19] of 1946 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force on 23rd April 1946 and the judgment of the appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit was pronounced on 22nd October 1946 yet no reliance was placed on the Act in support of the claim of the plaintiffs. The Act was not in forc...
Tag this Judgment!