Chennai Court October 1920 Judgments
The Secretary to the Board of Revenue Income-tax Vs. Al.Ar.Rm. Arunach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad427; (1920)39MLJ649
John Wallis, C.J.1. The only question argued before us was whether money which became due to a money lending firm in the course of its business by way of interest in the year of account, or year on the income of which the tax is to be assessed for the current year, is to be treated as part of the assessable income for that year of account although it was not recovered or realized by the firm in that year either in cash or by adjustment in the accounts.2. Income is defined in the ' Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English' adapted from the great Oxford Dictionary and published at the Clarendon Press as ' Periodical (usually annual) receipts from one's business, lands, work, investments etc ; income-tax (levied on this).' This is also the legal acceptation of the term, as appears from Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, and numerous definitions, some of which are there cited while others have been referred to by Mr. K.V. Krishnaswamy in his argument for the petitioners. Lord Selborne's, 'i...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to the Board of Revenue Income-tax Vs. Al. Ar. Rm. Aruna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad65
John Wallis, C.J.1. The only question argued before us was whether money which became due to a money-lending firm in the course of its business by way of interest in the year of account, or year on the income of which the tax is to be assessed for the current year, is to be treated as part of the assessable income for that year of account, although it was not recovered or realized by the firm in that year, either in cash or by adjustment in the accounts. 2. 'Income' is defined in the 'Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English', adapted from the great Oxford Dictionary and published at the Clarendon Press, as 'Periodical (usually annual) receipts from one's business, lands, work, investments, etc.; income-tax (levied on this).' This is also the legal acceptation of the term, as appears from Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and numerous definitions, some of which are there cited while others have been referred to by Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami in his argument for the petitioners. Lord Selborne'...
Tag this Judgment!E.M. Visvanadhan Chetty and Two ors. Vs. Arunachelam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad100
John Wallis, C.J.1. The answer to the reference appears to depend on the construction of Order XXI, Rule 52, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was first enacted as Section 237 of the Code of 1859, under which the first attaching decree-holder was entitled, as the first judgment-creditor suing out a writ of fi-fa in England, to have his claim satisfied in fall out of the proceeds of execution, the surplus only being liable under the Code to rateable distribution among subsequent attaching creditors. It was however retained as Section 272 of the later Codes under which by virtue of Section 295, now 73, the attaching judgment-creditors were obliged to submit to rateable distribution with, but only with, other decree-holders who had applied to the attaching Court for execution before the date specified in the section. Now, it does not seem likely that the legislature would have retained, and even extended, the old Section 217 by substituting the word 'property' for 'money or any securi...
Tag this Judgment!Kalinadhabhotla Brahmayya Vs. Marla Appayya Sastri Minor by Guardian V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad351
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This suit was instituted in order to have an auction sale held in execution of a decree of the plaintiff's property set aside, on the ground of irregularity and fraud. The sale was held on 20th March 1917. The present plaintiff, the judgment-debtor, applied on 25th April 1917 under Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the sale on the very same grounds as are now raised in the plaint. The application was dismissed as it was made after the expiry of the thirty days allowed by law and we may point out that the sale had been confirmed under Order XXI, Rule 92(1), on the day previous to the application. Then the plaintiff filed an appeal and the Appellate Court remanded the application for fresh disposal on the ground that the Court had inherent jurisdiction to set aside the sale even after the expiry of the period of limitation and after the confirmation of the sale.2. The present suit was filed on 27th August 1917, i.e., during the pendency of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajarajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthuramalinga Sethupathi, Rajah of Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad514
Napier, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by the Zamindar of Ramnad to recover theerva from the trustee of the Rameswaram temple for trees growing on the land attached to the temple. The written statement alleged first that the topes belonging to the temple were Devadayam land and that the temple is not liable to any theerva in law or by custom; secondly, that the suit was barred by Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, by virtue of two decrees, one that of the District Court of Madura on Appeal in Original Suits Nos. 288 and 289 of 1879, the other the decree in Original Suits Nos. 571 and 572 of 1903 in the Court of the District Munsif of Paramakudi. Issues were framed, the third issue being 'whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by res judicata?' The District Munsif decided against the defendant in respect of both judgments pleaded as res judicata but the lower Appellate Court has reversed that decision holding that both these decisions operated as res judicata. This questio...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Income-tax Vs. Al. Ar. Rm. Arun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.482
John Wallis, C.J.1. The only question argued before us was, whether money which became due to a money-lending firm in the course of its business by way of interest in the year of account, or year on the income of which the tax is to be assessed for the current year, is to be treated as part of the assessable income for that year of account, although it was not recovered or realised by the firm in that year either in cash or by adjustment in the accounts. Income is defined in the 'Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English,' adapted from the great Oxford Dictionary, and published at the Clarendon Press, as 'Periodical (usually annual) receipts from one's business, lands, work, investments etc; income tax (levied on this).' This is also the legal acceptation of the term, as appears from Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, and numerous definitions, some of which are there cited; while others have been referred to by Mr. K.V. Krishnaswamy in his argument for the petitioners. Lord Salborne's, '...
Tag this Judgment!E.M. Visvanadhan Chetti and ors. Vs. Arunachalam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad218; 60Ind.Cas.302
John Wallis, C.J.1. The answer to the referenda appears to depend on the construction of Order XXI, Rule 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was first enacted as Section 237 of the Code of 1859, under which the first attaching, decree holder was entitled, as the first judgment-creditor suing out a writ of fi fa in England to have his claim satisfied in full out of the proceeds of execution, the surplus only being liable under the Codes to rateable distribution among subsequent attaching creditors. It was, however, retained as Section 272 of the later Cases under which, by virtue of Section 295, now 73, the attaching judgment-creditors were obliged to submit to rateable distribution with, but only with, other decree holders who had applied to the attaching Court for execution before the date specified in the portion. Now, it does not seem likely that the Legislature would have retained, and even ended the old session 217 by substituting the word 'property' for money or any security...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Ammal Minor by Mother and Next Friend, Krishnammal Vs. Perumal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad137; 61Ind.Cas.461; (1921)40MLJ25
John Wallis, C.J.1. This case raised questions of some importance under the Transfer of Property Act as to the transfer of mortgages and of actionable claims by way of gift, and we have taken time to consider our judgment.2. The facts may be very briefly stated. A few days before his death one Pothi Naicker executed Exhibit-50, an unregistered instrument by which he made an immediate disposition of property consisting of mortgages, promissory notes, and book-debts allotting the items in Schedule I to the defendants, the sons of a deceased son, and the items in Schedule 2 to the plaintiff, the daughter and only surviving child of another deceased son. It is not disputed that this disposition in the deed was intended to take effect at once. Exhibit 50 recites this, and is borne out by the oral evidence of the plaintiff's mother, the 1st witness for the defence in Original Suit No. 26 of 1917 which was tried along with the present suit, that the promissory notes and mortgage deeds mention...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaraja Mudaliar and Swaminatha Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Sabapathi Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad114; 61Ind.Cas.783
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals from the decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chingleput declaring the appointment of the first defendant as the temporary trustee of Ekambaranathaswami Temple was invalid, and that, if it were valid, the first defendant had rendered himself liable to be removed and should be ramval, and also setting a scheme for the future management of the temple.2. Now as regards the first point, a question has been argued before us whether a Temple Committee has power to appoint a trustee temporarily. As no bedy desires that the temporary appointment of the present first defendant should be continued it is unnecessary for us to express any final opinion upon that question. Speaking for myself, I am disposed to think that the cases to which we have been referred are eases where trustees have been appointed by a Temple Committee without any reservations and the offices had been held to be free-bold offices. The powers which had been given to the beard of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Davood Mohideen Rowther Vs. Jayarama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad42; (1921)40MLJ38
Wallis, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case on the 6th December, 1917 took the suit and other lands on lease from the 1st defendant under a rental agreement Ex. A for four years from the 15th December, 1917 at an annual rent of Rs. 400 and on the same day Venkatachella and Ponnuswami Muthiriyan took the same lands from the plaintiff for the same term and at the same rent under Ex. V which is styled a deed of sub lease and contains a stipulation that they would themselves take possession of the lands and enjoy them. The plaintiff did not obtain possession of the suit lands and brought this suit to recover possession and mesne profits of them from his lessor the first defendant and defendants 2 to 4 who were alleged to be in wrongful possession of them. The Subordinate Judge found that defendants 2 to 4 were in possession of the suit lands as trespassers and passed a decree for possession against all the defendants and for Rs. 350 for past mesne profits and Rs. 549 for proportionate costs ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »