Chennai Court April 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Deputy Commissioner and Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1914
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ191
1. The question which the Board was directed to refer is whether in the circumstances, the Collector of Malabar had jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. Now the income which is taxable under the Act is, as provided in Section 3 'all income from whatsoever source it is derived if it accrues or arises or is received in British India or is under the provisions of this Act, deemed to accrue or arise or to be received in British India,' and under Section 33(1) in the case of 'any person residing out of British India 'all profits or gains accruing or arising to such person whether directly or indirectly through or from any business connection in British India shall be deemed to be income accruing or arising in British India', and is consequently taxable under the express provisions of Section 3. It makes no difference with regard to this section whether the non-resident entitled to the income is a British subject or a foreigner, in either case he is chargeable with the tax in British India...
Muthusamy Aiyar Vs. Solai Konan Alias Ramiah Konan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad48(1); 25Ind.Cas.679; (1914)26MLJ597
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. The finding in this case is that the plaintiff was a benamidar for Kamakshi Ammal. The issue raised in the case covers this question and there is evidence upon which the Court below was entitled to come to the conclusion that the defendant executed the document to the plaintiff at the instance of Kamakshi and on her behalf. I accept this finding. Then Mr. Seshagiri Sastri argues that as the rent deed was executed to the plaintiff payment to Kamakshi Ammal cannot absolve the defendant from liability to him and he relies upon the authority of Jai Narayan Bose v. Kadimbini Dasi (1869) 7 BLR 728 (foot note) for that position. There has been a conflict of views in regard to this question and so far as this High Court is concerned in Kuthaperumal Rajali v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1906) M. 245 the learned Judges have come to the conclusion that the real owner is entitled to maintain a suit in his own name for recovery of property or money. Following that...
Ramaswami Reddi Vs. Sokkappa Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1914
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ194
Spencer, J.1. On further consideration I am not satisfied that the decision dated 2 C-3-1917 of Srinivasa Iyengar, J. and myself in A.A.A. Order No. 95 of 1916 was wrong. It is argued on the strengh of the subsequent decision by another Bench in Nimmala Mahankali v. Kallakuri Seetharamiah (1916) 32 M.L.J. 455 that the fact that in this case the date for payment was a date after the Code of 1918 came into force, it is enough to distinguish this case from the cases in Balaji Rao v. Harirama Chetty (1915) 82 Ind.Cas. 39 Singaravelu Pilled v. Santhanakrishna Mudaliyar (1915) M.W.N. 643 Hussain v. Karim I.L.R. 39 Mad. 544 and Natesa Udayan v. Annaswami Udayan (1916) 3. L.W. 468 which we followed. I think that a final and executable decree was passed in this case under the Transfer of Property Act, notwithstanding that the direction in the decree for sale of property was made conditional on default of payment of the amount found due to the plaintiff by a certain date. With due regard to the ...
Pasumarti Payidanna Vs. Ganti Lakshminarasamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1914
Reported in: (1915)28MLJ525
Wallis, J.1. This is a Second Appeal from the decree of the Lower Courts declaring that the sale in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 559 of 1903 on the file of the District Munsif of Vizagapatam was not binding on the plaintiff. The present plaint was presented as a petition in that suit, but was registered as a plaint in a separate suit under the new provision in Section 47, Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts may be briefly stated. The present 1st defendant had obtained decrees against plaintiff's husband in two suits 555 and 559 of 1903, and after his death his two widows, the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, were brought on as his legal representatives by the Court of the District Munsif of Rajam to which the decrees had been transferred for execution. One of the grounds taken by the plaintiff is that the Court to which the decrees had been transferred for execution was not the proper Court to bring on legal representatives of a deceased party, as decided by the Full Bench in Swam...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Raver Unithiri, Marvather Vittil and Ambumar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad50; 24Ind.Cas.145; (1914)26MLJ511
Wallis, J.1. These are appeals from acquittal by the Sessions Judge setting aside the conviction of the accused on the ground the complaint was not filed within six months from the grant of sanction in the first instance as required by Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is argued by the Public Prosecutor that the terms of the section as interpreted by the decisions of two Full Benches of this Court, Muthuswami Mudali v. Veeni Chetti I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 382 Babu alias Adimulatn Pillai v. Babu alias Krishinayan : (1912)22MLJ419 were sufficiently complied with as the complaint was filed within six months of the order of the High Court confirming the sanction. It has been held in these decisions that the confirmation or revocation of a sanction by the appellate authority pursuant to the sub-section is a fresh giving. or refusing of sanction within the meaning of the sub-section so as to give the Court to which the Appellate Court is subordinate, jurisdiction to entertain an appe...
K.R. Ramachandra Ayyar Vs. the President of the Vakils' Association, H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1914
Reported in: (1916)ILR39Mad128
ORDER1. The petitioner relies upon the fact that leave to appeal was granted by this Court in a similar case In the matter of Krishnaswami Iyer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 595 and 596 of 1912, but on a further consideration of the question we agree with the recent decision, In re an Attorney I.L.R. (1914) Cal. 734, that disciplinary proceedings under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are not appealable under Clause 39, and that we have no power to give leave to appeal to the Privy Council from an order passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction. This is also the view taken in G.S.D. v. Government Pleader (1908) I.L.R. 32 Bom. 106. In Tetley v. Jai Shankar I.L.R. (1878) All. 726 also it was held that no such leave could be granted and though in the subsequent case from Allahabad, In re S.B. Sarbadhicary (1906) 34 I.A. 41 it appears that leave was granted by the Allahabad High Court, the reports show that special leave to appeal was obtained from their Lordships before the appeal w...
Patinjara Manakal Parameswaran Nambudri Vs. M.K. Subramania Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.456
1. We think that the appeal must be allowed. The counter-petitioner, no doubt, objected to the jurisdiction in the Court of first instance in Cochin State. But, when a decree had been passed against him, he invoked the aid of the Appellate Court there without any such reservation. This, it seems to us, was a submission to the Cochin Courts which debars him from relying on any defect in their jurisdiction now, vide Boissiere and Co. v. Brockner and Co. 6 T.L.R. 85. We, therefore, without reference to the other contentions relied on by the petitioner-appellant, set aside the lower Appellate Court's order. The Subordinate Judge will restore the execution petition to his file and proceed with the disposal of it according to law.2. Costs here and in the lower Appellate Court will be costs in the cause....
Venkatagiri Nayani Varu (Died) and ors. Vs. K.J. Subbarayalu Nayani Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Mad70; 24Ind.Cas.491
Wallis, J.1. I agree with the conclusion of the District Judge, that there was a bona fide compromise of a doubtful claim entered into during the plaintiffs' minority by their father as manager of the joint family and that as such it is binding on the plaintiffs. His judgment has been attacked on the ground that it is inconsistent with his finding that there was no real dispute between the parties as to Rangamma's claim to a one-third share of the village in question. In Exhibit IV, the document it is sought to set aside, which purports to be a settlement of all matters arising with respect to the village, this dispute is put in the forefront, although it is suggested that there were other differences as well, and if there were no bona fide dispute in this matter, it would certainly go far to affect the binding character of the settlement. I am, however, satisfied on an examination of the evidence that a bona fide dispute existed. This was a village held by the plaintiffs' family on mo...
Kumara Venkata Perumal Rajah Bahadur Varu, Minor Rajah of Karvetnagar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Mad449; (1914)27MLJ25
Wallis, J.1. It is admitted by therespondent that the District Judge's order cannot be supported on the ground that the second period during which the estate was under the management of the Court of Wards should be excluded. During this period of management decrees were not transferred to, the collector for execution and the provisions of the Court of Wards Act and the Civil Procedure Code under which time is to be excluded in that case do not apply.2. It has however been sought to exclude the operation of the 12 years rule under Section 48, Civil Procedure Code, on other grounds. The decree in the present case was dated the 2nd May 1890. Though a mortgage decree it does not follow the form prescribed by Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act, but gives the plaintiff a personal decree for the whole amount and not merely for the balance that might be found due after the sale of the mortgaged properties. Accordingly properties of the Judgment-debtor not included in the mortgage were ...
Sivasamba Iyer Vs. Kuppan Samban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1914
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.769
1. It is argued, first, that the lower Appellate Court's decision, dissenting from that of the District Munsif in favour of the respondents-defendants, cannot be sustained, because no appeal lay to it. The question was between parties to the decree under execution, though against defendants no relief had been granted, and related to the propriety of a delivery. It, therefore, in our opinion was one for disposal under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Jathavedan Nambudiri v. Kunchu Achan 30 Ma. 72; 2 M.L.T. 34; 16 M.L.J. 433, relied on by plaintiff, decided only that a dispute between such parties could be dealt with by enquiry under Section 331 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a subsequent suit, not that the procedure under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not a legitimate alternative, the headnote to that effect being inaccurate. The question is, in our opinion, concluded by Vibudhapriya Tirthaswami v. Yusuf Sahib 28 M. 380; 15 M.L.J. 202, which was followed i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »