Chennai Court April 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. Linga Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad848; (1927)53MLJ377
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. In my opinion this case is unarguable. The assessee was a licensee of the Krishnapatam Salt Factory in the Nellore District. From the manufacture of salt on the land of which he was the lessee he made a profit of some Rs. 7,000 which has been assessed to income-tax. He now contends that this is agricultural income, that it is revenue derived from the land which is used for agricultural purposes and therefore not taxable. To my mind it would be a gross misnomer to hold that 'agricultural purposes' could be held to cover the process of flooding' the land occupied by letting in the sea water and then extracting the sodium chloride from it by eliminating the other chemical constituents. In my opinion the assessment was right and must be confirmed. The answer to the specific question referred is in the negative. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.Wallace, J.2. I agree.Beasley, J.3. I agree....
In Re: Nachiappa Udayan Alias Venga Udayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ528
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner wishes this Court to intervene in the course of this part-heard case and say that the Trial Court is wrong in holding that all the acts imputed to the accused cannot (can?) be brought within a single transaction, as that term is used in Section 239 of the Code of Cri. Procedure. The case is one of rioting and other offences, and it can hardly be doubted that in such circumstances a single trial and charge may comprehend many diverse acts committed over a considerable space of time, if there be ground to believe that they were the result of a common object. The objection to this Court endeavouring, in the midst of such a trial, to ascertain whether or not the Lower Court is exercising its powers rightly in holding a single trial, seems to me to be so manifest as scarcely to need stating. I do not go so far as to say that in no circumstances can a High Court interfere at such a stage in revision, but I think that the learned Judges who respectively dec...
Desu Rattamma Vs. Kakaraparthi Krishnamurthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ40
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 1,497-5-0, advances made by him as purchaser to defendants as vendors in respect of a sale of gunnies and damages. The lower courts have found that the transaction fell through owing to plaintiff's default. Therefore, there is no question of damages but the lower appellate court has decreed the return of plaintiff's advance of Rs. 750, though without interest, except from date of suit. The second defendant appeals, 1st defendant files a memo. of objections.2. The question for determination is, strictly speaking, one of fact, whether there was an implied contract between the parties that the money paid in advance should be treated as security for plaintiff's fulfilment of the bargain and as such liable to be forfeited on plaintiff's default. There can only be an implied contract, because no express stipulation is to be found in the agreement itself, Ex. A, which merely runs 'You have paid advance Rs. 750 at Rs. 15 per bale. Hence the same...
In Re: Suppan Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ526
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioners in this case were convicted by the Village Magistrate of Panrimalai, Dindigul Taluk, of an offence of assault and were sentenced to simple imprisonment in the village common from 1 p. m. to 3 p. m. on the date on which the conviction was passed. The first point raised is that a Village Magistrate proceeds under Act I of 1899 as amended by Act II of 1920, and Section 76 of that Act gives power to fine but not to imprison. Section 76, however, relates only to the procedure of a Panchayat Court and it is clear from Section 75 that a Village Court may be either a Panchayat Court or the Court of a Village Munsif, Section 7 enabling the Collector in villages where there are no Panchayat Courts to appoint Village Munsifs for this purpose. So far as I have been shown, the Act contains no provision for the conduct of criminal cases by Village Munsifs or Village Magistrates sitting without a Panchayat. For this, we have to turn to Regulation II of 1816, Secti...
Muhammad Amirkhan and ors. Vs. Mahalingam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad985; (1927)53MLJ523
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition arising out of proceedings taken under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the question which arose was whether the Hindu community were entitled to use a certain street, such user being resisted by the Muhammadans who live in that locality. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate found that the street was a public one, and the first question raised is whether Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has application in such circumstances. There is very little case-law upon this subject. In Kolandai Nayakan v. Karabudda Savudri (1896) 6 MLJ 193, which was under the old Code, application of the corresponding section was considered to be open to question. In Sndalaimuthu Chettiar v. Enan Samban 31 IndCas 367 and Karuppanna Goundan v. Kandaswami Goundan : (1914)26MLJ233 , on the other hand, it was held that there was nothing in the language of the section which precluded its application to similar circumstances...
Kandasami Goundan Vs. Marudachala Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad105
1. The only point for consideration in second appeal is whether the direction as regards the mortgage evidenced by Ex. A is a proper direction. The contention of Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar is that after partition, a decree against the father cannot be executed against the son's share, and he relies on Krishnaswami Konan v. Ramaswami Ayyar [1899] 22 Mad. 519 and D. Kameswaramma v. Venkata Subba Rao [1915] 38 Mad. 1120. Those cases have no application to the present. The present is one for partition. In the partition suit the plaintiff asks for a declaration that certain debts incurred by the father are not binding upon him. It is for him to show that those debts were incurred for illegal or immoral purposes' and if he is able to show that, then he could get relief. Otherwise the debts would be binding upon him. There is a distinct finding by the learned Subordinate Judge that the debts were not incurred for illegal or immoral purposes and are binding on the son. The debt secured by the mortga...
K. Abdul Salam Sahib Vs. Batchu Veerabhadraraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad129
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of a sum of money said to have been paid by the District Munsif's Court to the defendant who was not entitled to receive the same. The defendant got a decree in O.S. No. 99 of 22 against certain persons in July or August 1922. Before the decree he had attached certain moveables belonging to the defendants and proceeds of their sale were paid into Court. He applied for a cheque for the amounts due to him on 11th September 1922. The plaintiff who had filed O.S. 103 of 22 against the same defendants obtained a decree on 21st June 1922 and applied for attachment of the amount in Court on 80th June 1922 and the attachment was effected on 11th August 1922. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiff failed to file a proper execution application before 11th September 1922 and therefore he did not coma within the provisions of Section 73, Civil P.C., so as to be entitled to rateable distribution of the assets in Court. The plaintif...
(Kaniyur) Ganapathi Bhatta Vs. Beeru Bhandary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1039a
1. The plaintiff's suit is for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage executed by two brothers, Kesava and Krishna, on 2nd February 1883 for Rs. 5000. The plaintiff has purchased the equity of redemption from Kesava. The defendants have purchased from Krishna his share of the equity of redemption in the suit properties. The District Judge has given a decree to the plaintiff for the redemption of half the property and has allowed the defendant to consolidate the mortgage with a simple mortgage by Kesava. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The first point raised by Mr. Sitarama Rao for the appellant is that the District Judge should have allowed redemption of the whole of the property as a partial redemption is opposed to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The finding is that the defendants have acquired the interest of Krishna in the equity of redemption. This finding is challenged by Mr. Sitarama Rao on the ground that defendants 1 to 3 have acquired the ...
Nagasubramania Mudali Vs. N. Krishnamachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad922; (1927)53MLJ403
Odgers, J.1. After a long delay of two years this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal comes before us again. We partially heard the Appeal in April 1925 and we then adjourned the hearing till a decision of the Lower Court had been reached as to whether the decree should be amended or not. That has now been done and a Civil Revision Petition against that decision has also been disposed of by us just now. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge of North Arcot adjudicating the petitioner insolvent. The father of the petitioner before us had incurred certain liabilities to the Commercial Bank and died and the petitioner as his son succeeded to the assets of his father. The learned District Judge held that the petitioning creditor having obtained a decree against the son as representing his father was entitled to have him adjudicated an insolvent. The matter seems to me to be very plain and can be dealt with shortly. It has been strenuously urged on us that the son is pe...
Batchu Perraju Vs. Batchu Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1
1. The question in this second appeal is whether the property of defendants 3 to 5 purchased by the plaintiff was subject to the attachment before judgment ordered in O.S. 128 of 1919. That was a suit brought by defendant 1 herein against defendants 3 to 5, and their maternal uncle for a sum of money said to be due to defendant 1. The plaint was presented to the Court' on the 19th June 1918. An application was made for attachment before judgment on the 17th July 1918. The District Munsif ordered conditional attachment on 17th July 1918; and the conditional order of attachment was made absolute on 13th August 1918. Defendants 3 to 5 were minors at that time and defendant 1, their maternal uncle, was proposed as their guardian. He seems to have informed the Court before 14th August 1918 that he was unwilling to act, whereupon defendant 1 (plaintiff in that suit) proposed their mother, Ramalakshmi, as guardian of the minor defendants. That application was supported by an affidavit of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »