Chennai Court December 1927 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. in Re: Income Tax Assessment of P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.742
The assessee moved the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, to refer to the High Court certain questions of law which he alleged arose in connection with the assessment made by the Income Tax Commissioner. The Income Tax Commissioner being of opinion that no question of law in connection with the said assessment arose declined to make any reference. There upon the assessee moved the High Court and this High Court by its order, dated the 9th March, 1926, directed the Income Tax Commissioner to state a case on three points mentioned in that order. Subsequently the assessee moved the High Court to add a fourth point on which the Commissioner should be directed to state a case, the fourth point being. 'Where, in the absence of accounts, assessment was levied at an agreed figure as the result of negotiations by and on behalf of the assessee and the Income Tax Officer, whether the said assessment can be re-opened under Section 34 of the said state of affairs, namely, absence of accounts or by...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Ponnusami Nayak and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1927
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.546
1. Eight persons were charged with the murder of one Venkatarama Reddi. The Committing Magistrate discharged three of them and committed the rest for trial. At the trial one of the Assessors thought that all the five accused were guilty, two thought that one of them, the fifth was innocent and the fourth that two, the third and the fifth were. The Sessions Judge, however, acquitted all of them. Against this acquittal the Public Prosecutor has appealed and we have called upon the three accused who were discharged by the Committing Magistrate to show cause why they should not be committed for trial. As we are ordering a re-trial, we propose to say as little as possible about the evidence in the case. A great portion of it relates to the parts said to have been played by two of the discharged accused. It is alleged that while the acquitted accused were parleying with the murdered man, these two drove slowly past in a motor car and instigated them to shoot. The Committing Magistrate on the...
R.A. Arunachala Iyah Vs. Louis Dreyfus and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ580
ORDER1. The question raised is new and there is very little to guide us. The decision in Swift & Co. v. Board of Trade L.R. (1926) 2 K.B. 131 does not help us. That in Wimshurst Hollick & Co. v. Barrow Ship-building Co. (1877) L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 335 furnishes some analogy. The costs incurred before the arbitrator or umpire cannot be regarded as the costs of 'a proceeding in the High Court', but are the costs of a tribunal unconnected with this Court. The word costs in Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and in Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code refers to costs incurred in Court. If there is a valid award and the award itself provided for the costs, then the matter rests on a different footing. But where, as in this case we hold that there is no valid reference to arbitration, we do not see what jurisdiction we have to pass an order as to costs of the award. The petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs....
Vakalath Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad472
Devadoss, J.1. In a Civil Miscellaneous Application Mr. T. M. Ramaswami Ayyar presented a vakalathnama drawn up in English but signed by the executant in Tamil. The office drew his attention to the fact that the proviso to Rule 23 of the Appellate Side Rules should be complied with. Mr. T. M. Ramaswami Ayyar has demurred to this and the matter has come up before me for orders. As this is a matter which affects the practice of the High Court I requested Mr. T. A. Anantha Ayyar to be amicus curiae and to present the case for the office. He has helped me greatly and I am thankful to him for the help.2. Mr. Narayanan for Mr. T. M. Ramaswami contends that under Order 3, Rule 4 (1), Civil P.C., a pleader is bound only to produce a vakalathnama and the vakalathnama should be attested under Rule 4 only if the executant is a marksman, and if he is a person who knows to sign his name, his signature need not be attested. The proviso to Rule 23 of the Appellate Side Rules, upon which the office re...
G.i.P. Ry. Co. and anr. Vs. Majeti Sreeramulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad599
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Rajahmundry in Small Cause Suit No. 679 of 1925. The plaintiff's suit is for damages for loss of goods in transit and defendants 2 and 4 are the G. I, P. By. Co. and the Secretary of State for India in Council. The District Munsif decreed the suit. The Secretary of State has filed this petition.2. The contention of Mr. Nambiar on behalf of the petitioner is that no notice was served on the Secretary of State as required under Section 80, Civil P.C. The plaintiff who consigned at Bombay some goods has brought this suit against the Railway Company and the Secretary of State for loss of goods in transit. He gave a notice as required under Section 77, Railways Act, within six months of the loss, that is, on 20th February 1925. The Railway Administration was taken over by the Secretary of State for India on 1st July 1925, and the suit was filed on 18th August 1925. The question is whether the suit is bad by...
Ramaswami Chettiar and anr. Vs. Muthialuswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad903
Ramesam, J.1. In this case, the appellants, two Chetties of Salem, were sought to be declared insolvents by a creditor and the District Judge found that they committed an act of insolvency and therefore declared them insolvents. They appeal. The facts are: The appellants were carrying on business in yarn twist and cloths and by the end of 1925 their position became very involved. They had a number of creditors, the principal amount of whose debts is stated in Ex. 1 to be about Rs. 17,200. Two of these creditors are the petitioner and P.W. 2 and their debts amounted to Rs. 5,000 and 4000 respectively. There is another creditor whose debts amount to Rs. 2,000 and two others whose debts amount to Rs. 1,000 each and the others' debts amount to less than Rs. 1,000. The appellants had two houses and a garden besides the dwelling house. They had a number of outstandings due to them. On paper they amount to Rs. 18,000 odd. Except two of these which amount to more than a thousand, all the other...
The Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company and ors. Vs. Mageti Sreeram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.406
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Rajamundry in Small Cause Suit No. 679 of 1925. The plaintiff's suit is for damages for loss of goods in transit and defendants Nos. 2 and 4 are the G.I.P. Railway Company and the Secretary of State for India in Council. The District Munsif decreed the suit. The Secretary of State has filed this petition.2. The contention of Mr. Nambiar on behalf of the petitioner is that no notice was served on the Secretary of State as required under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff who consigned at Bombay some goods has brought this suit against the Railway Company and the Secretary of State for loss of goods in transit. He gave a notice as required under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act within six months of the loss, that is, on 20th February, 1925. The Railway Administration was taken over by the Secretary of State for India on 1st July, 1925, and the suit was filed on 18th August, 1925. The qu...
Mir Hyder Ali Sahib Vs. AmirudIn Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1927
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ199
Ananthakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. On the allegation that the first defendant was the plaintiff's tenant, and that the tenancy had been determined by notice to quit, the plaintiff applied to the Madras Court of Small Causes by Petition No, 17 of 1921 under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the properties to the plaintiff. The Court passed an order directing the 1st defendant to vacate the premises by the 26th of March, 1921 and ordered that, in default, possession would be delivered through Court on 31st March, 1921. Then the plaintiff took out a warrant for possession (M.P. No. 715 of 1921) and when the bailiff of the Court of Small Causes went to the premises to deliver possession to the plaintiff he was obstructed by defendants 2 and 3 who set up right in themselves and also denied tenancy under the plaintiff. Thereupon the Court dismissed the plaintiff's Petition No. 715 of 19...
Ramachandran, Minor by Mother and Guardian Visalakshi Ammal Vs. C. Sab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.288; (1928)54MLJ234
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point, I have to decide, is, is the abatement of the suit as against the 2nd defendant to be set aside or not? The suit is brought on behalf of the minor plaintiff by his mother acting as his next friend. The 2nd defendant who was the paternal grandmother of the minor and the mother-in-law of the next friend died on the 25th of April, 1927, and no application was made within the 90 days allowed by the law to bring her legal representative on the record and, under Order 22, R. 4, Civil Procedure Code, the suit abated as against the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff had then a period of 60 days for applying under Order 22, Rule 9, for setting aside the abatement. The application was not made within the time allowed, but, was made on the 7th of October, 1927, that is, a few days after the expiry of the aggregate period of 150 days.2. In this case, under both the provisions of the law that apply, sufficient cause should be shown; first, the applicant must show 'suffic...
P.i. Govindaraju Naicker Vs. P. Kassim Sahib and Four ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad384; (1928)54MLJ409
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application for leave to amend the plaint and it raises the question whether I can grant an amendment in a suit which 1 have no jurisdiction to try. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiff purchased from the 1st and 4th defendants, 7,500 trees in a garden situated at Tiruvottiyur, beyond the limits of the City of Madras. That garden, along with some properties in the City, had been previously mortgaged by those defendants to defendants 2 and 3 under two deeds of mortgage, the first of 1917 and the second of 1920.2. The plaintiff as the purchaser of the trees, alleging a right to redeem, filed the present suit, inter alia, for redemption of the Tiruvottiyur garden (land as well as trees), on payment of Rs. 5,000, a part of the mortgage amount secured by the second mortgage.3. In regard to this relief, the plaintiff's case was that, although the first of the mortgages was for Rs. 19,000 and the second was for Rs. 14,500, there was a clause in the seco...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »