Chennai Court August 1923 Judgments
M. Sabapathy Chetty Vs. A. Shanmugappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad638; (1924)46MLJ453
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to execute the decree in C.S. No. 188 of 1903 by the transferee-plaintiff, and the only question is whether the application is barred by limitation. The decree is dated 14th December, 1904. Art appeal was filed against that decree which was also dismissed on 27th February, 1906. On the 9th May, 1908, execution was applied for and sale was ordered on 21st July, 1908. The property was sold on 1st May, 1909. The 1st defendant applied to set aside the sale and that application was dismissed on 29th September, 1909. An order was passed on the 6th October, 1909 giving leave to execute the decree as regards the balance. The plaintiff decree-holder died shortly afterwards and his estate vested in the Administrator-General of Madras. He applied for payment out of the net sale proceeds and an order was passed on 9th January, 1912 ordering payment to be made. The present application was filed on 1st February, 1923.2. The order of the 6th October, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Pandaram Vs. Arunachala Pandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad379
1. The most important schedule is the A Schedule which comprises properties sold at Court auction. At the same auction, certain other properties were sold which have been held to be trust properties, but we are not now concerned with those. When the A Schedule properties were attached, the plaintiff was a minor, but his grandmother presented a claim petition on the 9th of February, 1897 and this petition was dismissed and the properties were sold. Subsequently a suit was filed by the plaintiff's grandmother to set aside the order on the claim petition, O.S. No. 269 of 1899 in the District Munsif's Court of Negapatam. That suit was also dismissed. The plaintiff, who attained majority nearly three years before filing the suit, now comes to Court to recover possession of the properties which were then gold. The Subordinate Judge has found that, as there was an order against the plaintiff under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, the plaintiff ought to have brought his suit w...
Tag this Judgment!Pannai Ananthanarayana Aiyar Vs. Pannai Ramasubba Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad345; 79Ind.Cas.395
1. The appellant is one of the two petitioning creditors who applied to the District Court of Tinnevelly in I.P. No.12 of 1919 to have the third respondent in this Court adjudicated an insolvent. One of-the allegations in the petition was that the hypothecation in favour of the second respondent was in fraud of creditors. The Official Receiver, Tinnevelly, who is the fourth respondent, sold the hypotheca free of encumbrance and paid the second respondent in full. The petitioning creditors applied to the District Court Tinnevelly, to have the hypothecation declared void under sections 53 and 54 of the Act of 1920. The District Judge held that the application was an appeal against the act of the Official Receiver under Section 68 of the Act and dismissed it with costs as being barred by limitation, it not having been presented within 21 days of the order of the Receiver. This appeal is against the judgment of the District Judge.2. The appeal came on for hearing on 1st August 1923, when t...
Tag this Judgment!T.K.P. Paramasiva thevar Vs. Pulukaruppa thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad137; (1923)45MLJ829
Spencer, J.1. This appeal is concerned with an application to set aside a Court sale of mortgaged property which took place on November 21st 1919- It was filed by the 6th defendant on January 17th 1920 more than 30 days after the date of the sale and was rejected by the Subordinate Judge as being out of time. The learned District Judge confirmed his order.2. It is now contended that the omission to publish -the sale in Rayagiri, which is the village where the land is situated, was not a mere irregularity but an illegality, that the petition though treated by the Subordinate Judge in his judgment as an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure was properly (as it purported to be) one under Section 47 and that the Limitation period in such cases is 3 years under Article 181 of the 1st schedule of the Limitation Act.3. Assuming that the publication of the sale notice in Sivagiri, the parent village to which the suit land belongs according to the plaint and the mor...
Tag this Judgment!Mele Vittil Kunhan Menon Vs. Mele Vittil Kannan Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad482; (1924)46MLJ133
1. The parties are Nair subjects of the Cochin State. The suit has been brought in a British Court to obtain partition of properties in British India. The Subordinate Judge of Palghat has appointed a Receiver to manage these properties pendente lite.2. When a member of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family sues for partition, his right to become divided is self evident and It may be taken for granted that, unless he makes default, he will get a decree, the form that the partition will take being alone left in issue. There is no such certainty about the present case. The theory that the plaintiff can take his newly acquired right to partition under the Cochin Regulation, carry it with him as his personal law into a foreign country and impress immoveable property lying in that country, where partition among Nairs is not the law of the land, with the character of portability is a novel one and will need to be established at the trial. Meanwhile the plaintiff has not a prima facie right to ask f...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Revenue Vs. R.M.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad197
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C.C.J.1. The assessee is a Nattukkottai Chetti carrying on business in Madras and elsewhere as banker and money-lender. In the year of assessment, he remitted from Madras sums aggregating over 4 lakhs of rupees to Penang, such sums being invested there in Straits Settlements dollars, and ultimately reconverted into rupees and remitted back to Madras. The remittances were made on eight occasions within a period of four months in 1919 and the retransfer to Madras was on thirteen occasions covering a period of four months from the end of 1920 to the beginning of 1921. Owing to the fluctuations in exchange, which varied between 83 and 175 rupees per 100 dollars, the assessee made a profit of a considerable amount on the transactions. He has been assessed to income-tax on that profit, and the question referred to this Court is whether he has been correctly assessed. Under Section 51(1) of the Income-tax Act which was then in force, any question which has arisen ...
Tag this Judgment!Mela Vittil Kunhan Menon Vs. Mele Vittil Kannan Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.561
1. The parties are Nair subjects of the Cochin State. The suit has been brought in a British Court to obtain partition of properties in British India. The Subordinate Judge of Palghat has appointed a Receiver to manage these properties pendente lite.2. When a member of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family sues for partition, his right to become divided is self-evident and it may be taken for granted that, unless he makes default he will get a decree, the form that the partition will take being alone left in issue. There is no such certainty about the present case. The theory that the plaintiff can take his newly acquired right to partition under the Cochin Regulation, carry it with him as his personal law into a foreign country and impress immoveable property lying in that country, where partition among Nairs is not the law of the land, with the character of partiality is a novel one and will need to be established at the trial. Meanwhile, the plaintiff has not a prima facie right to ask fo...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver of South Arcot Vs. Perumal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.322
1. Section 4 of Act V of 1920 is wide enough to enable an Insolvency Court to adjudicate upon questions of title 'which the Court may deem it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of doing complete justice or making a complete distribution of property in any case' of Insolvency.2. But the power given by this section is subject to the provisions of the Acts one of which is the proviso to Section 56(3) which is in the way of a Court removing any person from the possession of property whom the insolvent has not a present right to remove.3. In this case it is not admitted that the insolvent has a present right to joint possession of those properties along with respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 5.3. In that respect this case differs on the facts from the Official Assignee of Madras v. Ramachandra Aiyar 68 Ind. Cas. 898 : 46 M. 54 : 16 L.W. 559 : (1922) M.W.N. 658 : 43 M.L.J. 569 : A.I.R.(1923) (M.) 55 where the insolvent had a right to be in joint possession of the family property with h...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. Perumal Pillay and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad387
1. Section 4 of Act V of 1920 is wide enough to enable an Insolvency Court to adjudicate upon questions of title 'which the Court may deem it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of doing complete justice or making a complete distribution of property in any case' of insolvency.2. But the power given by this section is subject to the provisions of the Act, one of which is the provision to Sections 56(3), which is in the way of a Court removing any parson from the possession of property whom the insolvent has not a present right to remove.3. In this case it is not admitted that the insolvent has a present right to joint possession of these properties along with respondents 2, 4 and 5.4. In that respect this case differs from the facts in The Official Assignee of Madras v. Ramachandra Aiyar 1923 Mad. 55, where the insolvent had a right to be in joint possession of the family property with his sons.5. Seeing that the Insolvency Court, even if it adjudicated upon the title of th...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Land Revenue and Settlement (income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ711
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This case is referred under the Income Tax Act by the Board of Revenue for the opinion of the High Court. The question relates to the assessment for income tax of the firm known as B. Muniswami Chetty and Son, and there are two distinct points referred.2. B. Muniswami Chetty and Son carry on a business in piece-goods, the partners in the firm B. Damodaram Chetty and P.V. Ramanujam Chetty, Damodaram Chetty having a much larger share. On the facts as now found it is clear that that firm engaged in business with other partners in two other firms, one called the Carnatic Import Company and the other B. Damodaram Chetty and Co., whose business were of an allied character in that they dealt in goods similar to those dealt in by Muniswami Chetty and Son. B. Muniswami Chetty and Son had a much larger share in those other two firms, there being in each case a partner with a small share to encourage him to take a real interest in the management of the business....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »