Skip to content


Sivagami Ammal and ors. Vs. Muthu Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1939)1MLJ111
AppellantSivagami Ammal and ors.
RespondentMuthu Aiyar
Cases Referred and The Crown v. Chand Mal I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. orderlakshmana rao, j.1. section 10 of the child marriage restraint act (xix of 1929) provides that a court taking cognisance of an offence under that act should either itself make an enquiry under section 202 of the code of criminal procedure or direct a magistrate of the first class subordinate to it to make such enquiry and the transfer of the case to the sub-divisional magistrate for disposal according to law without any such inquiry is illegal. vide mangal ram v. kalu i.l.r.(1930) 12 lah. 383 and the crown v. chand mal i.l.r.(1933) 15 lah. 383. the complaint is therefore transferred back to the file of the district magistrate of tinnevelly for disposal according to law.
Judgment:
ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. Section 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929) provides that a Court taking cognisance of an offence under that Act should either itself make an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or direct a Magistrate of the First Class Subordinate to it to make such enquiry and the transfer of the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for disposal according to law without any such inquiry is illegal. Vide Mangal Ram v. Kalu I.L.R.(1930) 12 Lah. 383 and The Crown v. Chand Mal I.L.R.(1933) 15 Lah. 383. The complaint is therefore transferred back to the file of the District Magistrate of Tinnevelly for disposal according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //