Chennai Court March 1924 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.
Periyanayaki Ammal Vs. A.C. Ratnavelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.23
Ramesam, J.1. In this appeal the first question that arises is the construction of a Will. The testator Shanmugha Mudaliar died in December 1912 leaving a Will dated the 11th November 1911, Under this Will he gave certain properties to his three daughters. We are now concerned with the disposition in favour of one of the daughters Lokanayaki Animal. She died on the 2nd of October 1918. She had had a son who was born on the 30th of September 1918 and who predeceased her on the 1st of October 1918 having lived only fora day.2. The important clause in the Will runs thus; 'These (meaning the daughters) have no power to make sale, gift, mortgage, etc., of these two houses and grounds. After these, their issues shall use and enjoy them from son to grandson and so on in succession as long as the sun and the moon may last with the power of gift, mortgage, exchange and sale and they shall every year without default perform the aforesaid ceremonies, etc.' The first question that arises is whethe...
Rukmani Ammal Vs. Veerasami Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.942
Jackson, J.1. In O.S. No. 420 of 1919 on the file of the Gourd of the District Munsiff of Sriraugam, the plaintiff Pichu Aiyar died. Both his widow Rukmani Animal, the present petitioner and his daughter Seethai Ammal, the present 2nd respondent applied to be brought on record as legal representative. The District Munsif found that Rukmani Ammal was a minor who had no right to apply in her own right and dismissed her application. Having done so, he disposed of Seethai Animal's application by merely recording 'defendant (present 1st respondent) has no objection.' And Rukmani Ammal now applies to have both orders revised.2. I cannot hold that the District Munsif acted irregularly in rejecting Rukmani Ammal's application, On the analogy of Order XXXII, Rule 2, he exorcised a discretion allowed him by law, though I think he exercised that discretion very hastily Of. Rationbai v. Ghabbildas Lalloobhoy 7 Ind. Dec. 5. But I cannot find that the District Munsif was justified in adding seethai ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Referring Officer Vs. Nedungadi Bank L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ160
1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, and the question for decision is whether tax on companies levied under Section 92 of the Madras District Municipalities Act(V of 1920) may be deducted as a business allowance under Section 10(2), Clause 9 of the Income-tax Act. According to Section 92 of the District Municipalities Act, under Notification of the Chairman every company transacting business within the Municipality for profit shall pay a half-yearly tax known as ' Tax on companies ' on the scale shown in Schedule IV, provided it has transacted business for more than 60 days in the half-year. Section 16 of Schedule IV lays down the method of assessment, from which it is clear that the assessment is made on the paid-up capital of the company, although in certain cases if the Head Office or a Branch or Principal Office of the company is not in the Municipality, and it is able to show certain figures of gross income, the tax on the paid-up capital is to some ex...
Ottapurakkal Thazhath Soopi Vs. Koochalantavida Parkum Chakkan Abdulla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad909; (1924)47MLJ554
Spencer, J. 1. The parties are Moplahs governed by the Marumakkathayam Law. The 2nd defendant appeals. The 2nd defendant and one Alipi Haji, now dead, were carrying on a timber trade. In 1896, the 2nd defendant took his son, the 1st defendant, as a partner and a partnership agreement was drawn up, which is Ex. A, dated 9th February, 1896. Under this, each of the partners had a 1 3 share in the profits of the timber trade. The assets contributed by the 1st defendant were the putravakasam property of the tavazhi, consisting of himself and the plaintiff, the 5th defendant and her children (plaintiffs 5 to 9) and the wife of the 2nd defendant. The tavazhi property was thus invested in the partnership trade, 1st defendant being the Karnavan of the tavazhi. In such a case, each member of the tavazhi does not himself become a partner, but as held in Ramanathan Chetti v. Yegappa Chetti (1915) 30 MLJ 241 and Gangayya v. Venkataramayyah ILR (1917) M 454 : 34 MLJ 271 the manager of the family is ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad693
1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, and the question for decision is whether tax on companies levied under Section 92 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, V of 1920 may be deducted as a business allowance, under Section 10(2) Clause 9 of the Income-tax Act. According to Section 91 of the District Municipalities Act, under the notification of the chairman, every company transacting business within the Municipality for profit shall pay a half yearly tax, known as 'Tax on companies' on the scale shown in Schedule IV, provided it has transacted business for more than 60 days in the half year. Section 16 of Schedule IV lays down the method of assessment, from which it is clear, that the assessment is made on the paid up capital of the company, although in certain cases if the Head office or a Branch or Principal Office of the company is not in the Municipality, and it is able to show certain figures of gross income, the tax on the paid up capital is to so...
In Re: Kuppa Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ232
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The petitioners were convicted of an offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, that of wrongful confinement. What the accused actually did is described in the following words by the lower Court : ' Accused 2 and accused 4...dragged him (the complainant) towards accused 1, his hands were tied....'AgainHe...testifies that accused 2 and 4....beat P.W. 1 at the instance of accused 1 and then tied his hands and pushed him westwards. D. W. 3 testifies to the use of violence.2. The Magistrate made an order under Section 106 of the Cr. P. Code directing each of the accused to execute a bond with sureties for keeping the peace during a period of 12 months.3. On behalf of the petitioners it has been contended that the order directing the accused to keep the peace was improperly made as the offence in respect of which the accused were convicted does not involve a breach of the peace.4. Section 106 so far as it is material for the present purpose runs thus:...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Varadarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad64; (1924)47MLJ470
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against an order of acquittal made in the following circumstances : The accused-respondent was directed under Section 182 of the Madras Dt. Municipalities Act, 1920, by the Chairman of the Salem Municipal Council to remove an encroachment, it having been alleged that a compound wall built by the accused in front of his house encroached upon a public street. The accused refused to comply with the order on the ground that there was no encroachment and thereupon lie was prosecuted under Section 313 by the Municipal Council for having failed to comply with the requisition lawfully made in pursuance of the provisions of the Act. The accused was tried by a Bench of Magistrates and they found that the wall was not built upon a part of the public street, that the portion occupied by the wall never formed a part of the street and that therefore there was no encroachment. On this finding of fact the order of acquittal was clearly ...
In Re: the City Municipal Act, Iv of 1919 and of Section 99 Clause 2 t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.842
1. This is an application by Rao Bahadur O. Thanikachalam Chettiar, one of the Commissioners of the Corporation of Madras and also a rate, payer, for an order directing that the President of the Corporation of Madras do allow the Municipal Councillors to consider and vote upon the proposition referred to in the Notice of Motion, which proposition was formally moved and seconded at a meeting of the Corporation and which the President ruled out of order. The resolution which was moved and seconded runs as follows: 'This Council resolves that a reduction be, made of property tax to the extent of per cent, and if the financial position of the Corporation would not admit of such reduction, then the proposals for increase to the staff, increased grants and for revision of the Works Department sanctioned during the budget discussion be suspended from being given effect to during the coming year.2. The facts which led to the present application as appear from the affidavits are shortly as foll...
In Re: Lilaram Ganganmull
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad805; 81Ind.Cas.817
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case one Lilaram Ganganmull brings up in revision a conviction and sentence of the Chief Presidency Magistrate sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment. Another man called, Sibagtullah, who was charged with him, was convicted along with him and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The matter came in revision before two learned Judges who argeed in rejecting Sibaagtullah's petition, but differed as to Lila ram's, my brother Krishnan J., being in favour of setting aside the conviction and my brother Waller J., in favour of upholding it. The charge and the only charge against the accused was of conspiring together to bribe a public servant, to wit Mr. Auston, Superintendent of the Preventive Service, Customs Department, in order that he might return certain account-books of the Firm of Lilaram Brothers which hehad seized under a warrant and that he might show favours in future to Lilaram; and the charge proceeds to set o...
V. Krishna Aiyar Vs. Pachaiyappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad883; (1924)47MLJ540
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration that the sale deed, dated the 16th September, 1919, executed by the Official Assignee of Rangoon in favour of the defendant is null and void. He described himself in the plaint as a creditor of T.A.R.A.R.M. Ramanathan Chetti who was adjudicated an insolvent and whose estate was represented by the Official Assignee above mentioned. This suit was filed on the 15th of January, 1920. Among other pleas, the defendant stated that he did not admit that the plaintiff was a creditor of the insolvent firm. Issues were framed on the 30th March, 1920, and the third issue runs thus:Whether the plaintiff was one of the creditors of the insolvent Ramanathan Chetty, and, if so, whether he has no cause of action to maintain this suit 2. The trial was about to commence in January, 1923, and on the 24th of January, one Krishnier made an application to the Court for the purpose of being added as a plaintiff to the action. I may sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »