Chennai Court January 1925 Judgments
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Aiyu Dikshithar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad688
Phillips, J.1. The only question that has been argued in this appeal is the fourth point in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, namely, whether the suit is barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Expl. 4 to Section 11. So far as the first portion is concerned it is quite clear that this is not a matter coming under Section 47, for it does not relate to the execution of any decree and it is not seriously contended that this suit should have been brought under Section 47 as an execution petition. The second portion is the point chiefly relied on namely, that this suit is barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in that there was a prior decision in execution proceedings to which the 2nd plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant were parties when id was held that the suit property was liable to be attached in execution of a decree against the 2nd defendant. So far as that point is concerned it is concluded by the order as between the parties t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamurthi Iyer Vs. Narayanaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.914
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Papanasam, who convicted the petitioner under Section 504, Indian Penal Code, confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tanjore. The Magistrate inquired into the complaint preferred by the complainant and framed a charge under Sections 352 and 504. At the time of writing the judgment, he discovered, that the occurrences were different and that the charges under Sections 504 and 352 could not be tried together and finding the illegality of the charges he struck out the charge framed, and framed a charge under Section 504 alone, against the accused and asked the accused whether the prosecution witnesses were to be re-called and examined and whether he had any defence witnesses to examine. The accused stated that he did not want to examine the witnesses and the Magistrate convicted him under Section 504.2. It is contended before me that this procedure is irregular. Under the Cr. P.C. a Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chengalvaraya Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.137
Victor Murray Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This is a case in which my learned brother Kumarswami Sastri directed the Commissioner of Income Tax to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, under Section 66 of the Income Tax Act.2. The learned Judge did something further] which the section does not provide for; he framed the question which he supposed to arise from the facts as set but in the Commissioner's report. With great respect to the learned Judge, I do not think that the question he framed was the real, question raised in the case, and I think that the question as he has framed it is so beset with assumptions and begged questions that it would be impossible to decide fairly what the seal point in this case is by any answer that could be given to the highly involved question he formulated.3. The facts here are very simple. The assessees are a firm of piece-goods merchants in this city and they keep their books and render their accounts to the income-tax authorities in what is kno...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chengalvaroya Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1242; (1925)49MLJ425
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This is a case in which my learned brother Kumaraswami Sastri directed the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case for the opinion of the High Court under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act.2. The learned Judge did something further which the section does not provide for ; he framed the question which he supposed to arise from the facts as set out in the Commissioner's report. With great respect to the learned Judge I do not think that the question he framed was the real question raised in the case, and I think that the question as he has framed it is so beset with assumptions and begged questions that it would be impossible to decide fairly what the real point in this case is by any answer that could be given to the highly involved question he formulated.3. The facts here are very simple. The assessees are a firm of piecegoods merchants in this City and they keep their books and render their accounts to the Income-tax Authorities in what is known ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralinga Mudaliar (Dead) and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver of Tin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad72; (1925)49MLJ616
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly in C.M.P. No. 566 of 1918 on his file in which the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly was the petitioner. The appellants, who were respondents 1 to 3 in the Lower Court, had brought a suit, O.S. No. 106 of 1913, in the District Munsif's Court of Ambasamudram against seven defendants, all members of a joint Hindu family. Pending the suit they applied for and got an attachment before judgment of the joint family properties. The suit was compromised and a razi decree, Ex. I, was passed on the 23rd of September, 1914, which provided that the defendants therein should pay into Court Rs. 2,100 with interest within the 15th of April, 1915, and that, in default, the attached properties might be sold and the amount realised. It also provided that the attachment before judgment which had already been made would continue until the amount fixed by the decree was paid. Defendants 1 and 7 in that suit died subse...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chengalvaraya Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR38Mad836
Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This is a case in which my learned brother, Kumaraswami Sastri, J., directed the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case for the opinion of the High Court under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act.2. The learned Judge did something further which the section does not provide for; he framed the question which he supposed to arise from the facts as set out in the Commissioner's report. With great respect to the learned Judge, I do not think that the question he framed was the real question raised in the case, and I think that the question as he has framed it is so beset with assumptions and begged questions that it would be impossible to decide fairly what the real point in this case is by any answer that could be given to the highly involved question he formulated.3. The facts here are very simple. The assessees are a firm of piece-goods merchants in this City and they keep their books and render their accounts to the income-tax authorities in what is known ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralinga Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.504
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly in C.M.P. No. 566 of 1918 on his file in which the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly was the petitioner. The appellants, who were respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in the lower Court had brought a suit, O.S. No. 206 of 1913, in the District Munsif's Court of Ambasamudram against seven defendants, all members of a joint Hindu family. Pending the suit they applied for and got an attachment before judgment of the joint family properties. The suit was compromised and a razi decree Ex. I, was passed on the 23rd of September 1914 which provided that the defendants therein should pay into Court Rs. 2,100 with interest within the 15th of April 1915 and that, in default, the attached properties might be sold and the amount realised. It also provided that the attachment before judgment which has already been made would continue until the amount fixed by the decree was paid. Defendants Nos. 1 and 7 in that suit died s...
Tag this Judgment!Echikan Charakare Kelu Nair Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1134; (1925)49MLJ79
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this second appeal are stated by my learned brother whose judgment I had the advantage of perusing.2. If the question before us is what is the proper rate of assessment on the suit land we are precluded from entering upon its consideration by Section 58 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to do the work of the Settlement Department, whether that department has come to a correct or incorrect conclusion in respect of a particular plot of land. In my opinion this is the proper scope of Section 58. But when the question before us is whether Government, having entered into a binding engagement, by which the assessment is fixed at a certain rate for a certain period, can alter the rate during that period to say that that Section 58 is a bar to our consideration of the question is to say that the section enables the Government to avoid the binding nature of contracts relating to revenue. I do not think the words any question as to the ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Parthasarathy Chetty and Co. Vs. T.M. Gajapathi Naidu and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1258; (1925)49MLJ215
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. If I had not the misfortune to differ from my learned predecessor who tried this case, I should myself have thought this matter to be a reasonably clear one. The plaintiffs are persons who were buying goods from foreign merchants in Europe on the demands of persons in the position of the defendants and in this case the defendants commissioned the plaintiffs to get them some fireworks from Europe on certain conditions. The contract is a confused document but the clauses that we are primarily concerned with apparently are reasonably clear. The contract provided for the drawing of bills against invoices and I will take it for purposes of argument that this was in effect a C.I.F. contract. The invoices came to hand with the documents and drafts attached. The terms of payment are these : 'We authorise you to draw upon us for the total amount of invoice at the sight mentioned below at current rate of exchange and such bill or bills we hereby bind ourselve...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemat Tirumala Tirupati Sreemat Prativadi Bhayankaram Venkatacharyul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad55; 90Ind.Cas.725; (1925)49MLJ313
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs are the owners of an Agraharam village in the sense that they own both the melvaram and the kudivaram rights. In the year 1909 there was a grant of the kudivaram right to the 1st and 2nd defendants and in consideration for that they promised to pay a rent and they also promised to pay what is described as nazarana to the landlords and that may be roughly described as a premium for the granting of the kudivaram which no doubt was in perpetuity. They gave a promissory note for the amount and the question is whether the debt--because it undoubtedly was a debt was a mere personal debt affecting the makers of the promissory note or whether it is a charge on the land. In the view that we take of this case the further question, which arose at the trial, viz., whether the 3rd and 4th defendants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice, does not arise. It is no doubt true that there is a direct decision in England Shephe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »