Chennai Court March 1923 Judgments
Board of Revenue Vs. the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad1
Ramesam, J.1. This reference under Section 51 Act VII of 1918 relates to the assessing of the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund for purposes of income-tax.2. The fund was established in 1872, being registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1866. It then started with 11,904 shares and gradually increased the shares up to 119,047 shares. A shareholder subscribes one rupee per share per mensem and at the end of seven years draws 102 1/2 rupees and then he ceases to be a shareholder (qua that share). The rate of interest works out at slightly less than 6 1/4 per cent at simple interest. The amount of Rs. 18 1/2 thus earned on each share is described as the guaranteed rate of interest. Other rules reduce the rate earned in case of withdrawal within seven years. A shareholder has to pay interest on the subscription if not paid within the time prescribed by the rules. The Fund gives loans to the shareholders, divided into ordinary loans and special loans. Occasionally when there are large amou...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary Board of Revenue, Income-tax Vs. the Mylapore Hindu Perm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad684; 76Ind.Cas.833
1. This reference under Section 51 of Act VII of 1918 relates to the assessing of the Mylapore, Hindu Permanent Fund for purposes of income-tax.2. The Fund was established in 1872, being registered under the Indian Companies, Act. of 1866. It then started with 11,904 shares and gradually increased the shares up to 119, 047 shares. A share-bolder, subscribes one rupee per shire per mensem and at the end of seven years, draws Rs. 103-8-0 and then he cases to be share-holder (qua that store]. The rate of interest works out at slightly less than that of 6 1/4 per cent, at simple interest. The amount' of Rs. 18-8-0 thus earned on each share, is described as the guaranteed rate of interest. Other rules reduce the rate earned in case of withdrawal within seven years. A share-holder has to pay interest on the subscription if not paid within the time prescribed by the rules. The Bund gives loans to the share-holders, divided into ordinary loans and special loans. Occasionally, when there are la...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Indian Companies Act Vii of 1913
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.966
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Phillips, J., on a petition made under Section 12 of the Indian Companies. Act asking the Court to confirm the special resolution of a Company for an alteration in the Memorandum of Association. Clause 7 of the memorandum is in the following words. 'T.R. Venketaramana Aiyrr has been appointed Agent, principal, secretary and Director to the Bank and given powers to enter on the responsibility of this Bank into an agreement or transaction with the register Banks in the following places and that places and with business and Industry Concerns of local traders with a view to the Bank's earning commission or profit. The actual words are in Tamil and the translation given above, I think, adequate; represents the meaning.2. The only power that the Court has to confirm resolutions of a Company ii regard to an alteration of the Memorandun of Association is in respect of matter; covered by Section 12; for Section 10 enact: that a Company s...
Tag this Judgment!Tota Varahaliah and ors. Vs. Sree Rajah Vatsavaya Venkata Suryanarayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad117; 75Ind.Cas.465
1. The only quest on for our disposal in this appeal is whether the suit lands formed part of an 'estate' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Both the lower Courts have found that it did not, and after a long argument on both sides we see no reason for interfering with that decision. We must take it as a fact that the suit lands were granted as an inam in the year 1798, at any rate, before 1802. This was not disputed before the lower Appellate Court; and the case proceeded on the assumption that it was so. The argument there adduced by the defendants, the appellants before us, was that, in spite of this fact, the lands should be treated as part of the estate, because it was not shown that the rentals on them had been deducted from the assets of the zemindari for the purpose of assessing peishcush. The lower Appellate Court has considered this aspect of the case and has come to the conclusion that, although t...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. the Coimbatore Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad126
Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Phillips, J., on a petition made under Section 12 of the Indian Companies Act, asking the Court to confirm the special resolution of a company, for an alteration in the Memorandum of Association. Clause 7 of the Memorandum is in the following words:T.R. Venkataramana Iyer has been appointed agent, principal secretary and the director to the Bank and given powers to enter, on the responsibility of this bank, into any agreement or transaction with the registered Banks in the following places and other places and with business and industrial concerns of local traders, with a view to the bank's earning commission or profits.2. The actual words are in Tamil and the translation given above, I think, adequately represants the meaning.3. The only power that the Court has to confirm resolutions of a company, in regard to as alteration of the Memorandum of Association, is in respect of matters covered by Section 12; for Section 10 enacts that:A ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Duraiswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ150
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is a case referred by the Commissioner of Income-tax to the High Court under Section 51 of the Income-Tax Act, VII of 1918 read with Section 6 of the Super-tax Act, 1920. The question for decision is whether the asses-sees who are the registered firm of M. Doraiswami Aiyangar and Brothers are assessable to Super-tax as an undivided Hindu family and the specific questions put to us are as follows:(1) Does the registration of the brothers as a firm as defined under Section 2(12) of Act VII of 1918 preclude the assessment of the family as an undivided family to super-tax on the income derived from the business of this firm?(2) If not, does the mere constitution of a partnership between some members of the family by a formal document preclude the assessment of the income of the partnership to super-tax as part of the income of the undivided family?2. When this case first came before us we thought it necessary to have mere information than was afforded to us by the...
Tag this Judgment!Ayisa Umma and ors. Vs. Puttiyapurayil Kumnachumkandi Abdulla and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.126
1. We first simply state the facts as the lower Appellate Court dealt with them. They are, that the decree-holder, here respondent, holds a preliminary decree for redemption dated 5th April 1913, he being a purchaser at a Court sale from the original mortgagor. The appellant is the mortgagee, against whom redemption is asked for. On 18th August 1913 the respondent made an application for a final decree. There was some discussion in the lower Appellate Court as to the nature of that application but before us it has been treated without cispute as one in execution. Whilst that application was pending, the mortgagee respondent sued to enforce his alleged right of pre-emption; and he obtained a decree recognising that right in the Court of first instance on 4th September 1914, the proceedings in the Appellate Court by which that decree was substantially confirmed, ending on 19th January 1916. Whilst this pre-emption suit was penning before the District Munsif, an injunction pendente lite w...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Doraiswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad682; 74Ind.Cas.22
1. This is a case stated by the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax to tae High Court under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act, VII of 1918, read with Section 6 of the Super Tax Act 1920. The question for decision is whether the assessees who are the registered firm of M. Doraiswamy Aiyangar & Bros., are assessable to super tax as an undivided Hindu family and the specific questions put to us are as follows:(1) Does the registration of the brothers as a firm as defined under Section 2(12) of Act VII of 1918 preclude the assessment of the family as an undivided family to super-tax or the income derived from the business of this firm?(2) If not, does the mere constitution of a partnership between some members of the family by a formal document preclude the assessment of the income of the partnership to super-tax as part of the income of the undivided family?2. When this case first came before us, we thought it necessary to have more in, formation than was afforded to us by the original case s...
Tag this Judgment!Ayissa Umma and ors. Vs. Puthiyapurayil Kannachamkandi Abdulla and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad178
1. We first simply state the facts as the lower appellate Court dealt with them. They are that the decree-holder, here respondent, holds a preliminary decree for redemption dated 5-4-1913, he being a purchaser at a Court sale from the original mortgagor. The appellant is the mortgagee, against whom redemption is asked for. On 18-8-13 the respondent made an application for a final decree. There was some discussion in the lower appellate Court as to the nature of that application; but before us it has been treated without dispute as one in execution. Whilst that application was pending, the mortgagee respondent sued to enforce his alleged right of pre-emption; and he obtained a decree recognising that right in the Court of first instance on 4-9-14, the proceedings in the appellate Courts, by which that decree was substantially confirmed, ending on 19-1-1916. Whilst this pre-emption suit was pending before the District Munsif, an injunction pendente lite was granted to restrain the furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Sambasadasiva Chinna Rayal Varu Vs. Bandar Maddulappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad73; 74Ind.Cas.968
Krishnan, J.1. The question raised in this case is one of limitation as to arrears of jodi and road-cess claimed by the zemindar against the defendant who holds the suit land on service in am under him subject to payment of jodi as well. This Court has been taking the view that jodi is only favourable rent. See the observation in Venkatagiri Rajah v. Venkat Rau 21 M. 243 : 7 Ind. Dec. 528, and the case reported in Gajapati Rajah v. Suryanarayanu 22 M. 11 : 8 Ind. Dec.8 in the latter case the question raised was one of limitation and only 3 years arrears were decreed. Though there may be a good deal to be said if the matter were res Integra, I think, I must follow these rulings which have not been overruled or dissented from. Following them, 1 must hold that Article no, applies and the suit is barred as held by the lower Court.2. The petition (Civil Revision Petition No 273 of 1922) is dismissed with costs.3. Civil Revision Petition No. 274 of 922 follows and is dismissed; but there wil...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »